or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › LG Official Announces 55" OLED for CES-
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LG Official Announces 55" OLED for CES- - Page 27

post #781 of 862
Thanks for the update Cool.

I agree on reflective.

OLED has two clear misses to me. Because the actual benefit itself is so incremental, they should have tied it to two unrelated advancements that they brought along with OLED (there is a great history of doing this with tech products, by the way).

1) All OLED should have been 4K.
2) All OLED should have used that new, super-thin non-reflective front glass

This would've helped separate it in the marketplace, helped justify the high prices, and made it that much harder for latecomers to compete with the early OLED players.

As it stands, OLED is destined to be perceived as very expensive and very incremental in the short term. That's a tough place to be and explains why it won't capture even 1% of the TV market in 2013.
post #782 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Thanks for the update Cool.
I agree on reflective.
OLED has two clear misses to me. Because the actual benefit itself is so incremental, they should have tied it to two unrelated advancements that they brought along with OLED (there is a great history of doing this with tech products, by the way).
1) All OLED should have been 4K.
2) All OLED should have used that new, super-thin non-reflective front glass
This would've helped separate it in the marketplace, helped justify the high prices, and made it that much harder for latecomers to compete with the early OLED players.
As it stands, OLED is destined to be perceived as very expensive and very incremental in the short term. That's a tough place to be and explains why it won't capture even 1% of the TV market in 2013.

3) Minimum size for OLED to make any impact at the current high-end should have been 65"
post #783 of 862
The 55 inch OLED is very costly to make, and it is going to cost consumers around $10K to purchase one. Would it be all right with you folks if they could just get the first generation of this OLED on the market first, to see how well if performs, and how consumers react to it, before you take over designing and production planning for them?!

All this nonsense about how they should have come out with a much larger panel with at least 4K resolution as a first generation offering of the first real OLED HDTV of any worth while viewing size ever is down right bizarre.

How much do you think they would have to set the price on one of those sets that you wanted them to roll out first? I expect that it would cost over 20K for one of them. How many of them would they end up selling?! I think it would have been idiotic for them to have pursued such a first generation product introduction approach.
post #784 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

The 55 inch OLED is very costly to make, and it is going to cost consumers around $10K to purchase one. Would it be all right with you folks if they could just get the first generation of this OLED on the market first, to see how well if performs, and how consumers react to it, before you take over designing and production planning for them?!
All this nonsense about how they should have come out with a much larger panel with at least 4K resolution as a first generation offering of the first real OLED HDTV of any worth while viewing size ever is down right bizarre.
How much do you think they would have to set the price on one of those sets that you wanted them to roll out first? I expect that it would cost over 20K for one of them. How many of them would they end up selling?! I think it would have been idiotic for them to have pursued such a first generation product introduction approach.

But that's the point now, isn't it. You ain't going to be picking up this set at Wal-Mart any time soon. They needed all new fabrication or to heavily modify the existing OLED plants anyway, so how much more could 4K or glare free glass have added? 2 or 3 thousand more? The people that are even considering buying this display have deep pockets and want the best. 5 grand more would not have been an issue. You think they are going to sell anything near 50,000 units the first year anyway? With 4K now starting to hit the market at equally high prices, they will have to convert over in 2-3 years anyway, and will wind up costing them more in the long run.
post #785 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

3) Minimum size for OLED to make any impact at the current high-end should have been 65"

Irkuck, really good point. Tricky to do well on 8G motherglass, though. But really good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

But that's the point now, isn't it. You ain't going to be picking up this set at Wal-Mart any time soon. They needed all new fabrication or to heavily modify the existing OLED plants anyway, so how much more could 4K or glare free glass have added? 2 or 3 thousand more? The people that are even considering buying this display have deep pockets and want the best. 5 grand more would not have been an issue. You think they are going to sell anything near 50,000 units the first year anyway? With 4K now starting to hit the market at equally high prices, they will have to convert over in 2-3 years anyway, and will wind up costing them more in the long run.

Honestly, the glare-free glass wouldn't cost much more at all. I mean, yes, it's pricier because it's new and the supplier can get more per square meter for it. But we're not talking thousands of dollars of materials cost, it's probably tens of dollars (which would get multiplied some by the time the product hits retail). As for the 4K, with the LG method, it's also not very expensive....

1) They'd have to put 4x as many transistors on the backplane. That may sound pricey, but the evidence from mobile phones -- where high res displays are becoming very common and pixel density still often easily exceeds what we're talking about here -- is that the increment of doing this is again really small. Probably again tens of dollars. My 4-year-old HP laptop has a significantly higher pixel density than a 4K 55" TV for that matter (it's a 1920 x 1080, 18".)

2) They'd have to pattern 4K color filters instead of 2K color filters. This is almost certainly beyond trivial for them. Everyone is really good at making color filters right now such that yields are almost certainly near 100%. I doubt the materials cost change is in more than single-digit dollars, if that.

So, yes, it would be more expensive to go to 4K and glare free, but we are talking something under $100 at the cost-of-production stage (for LG only). And given that LG offers passive 3D and 4K allows for full resolution passive 3D (whereas 2K does not), it's all the more mystifying they didn't do this. It feels like LG reacted to Samsung without fully thinking through how they could win and then -- because of a production edge -- LG is forcing Samsung to react. But each is missing the bigger picture on a fundamental level. It's unfortunate, but at this point all we can do is at least see the technology reach market at all -- which is a step.

Clearly, 4K is coming, full-res passive is coming, bigger than 55" is here and glare free looks to be something that will be available soon enough. OLED without those things is going into the fight with a short hand. It also explains why a lot of us bought Sharp Elites or VT50s without hesitation. There was never any question a 55" was too small for my recent purchase. So it didn't much matter to me when, from whom and how much. The pricetag is a deterrent, but the size was a dealbreaker. Someone buying in 2015 will probably say the same about 4K, which one hopes is available on OLED before then.
post #786 of 862
The 55" size does not inspire excitement or bragging rights.
And the blacks better surpass the Pioneer Kuro by a wide margin.
It could be a good seller for the wealthy and 1% ters.
post #787 of 862
You people would have been delighted to hear that they were introducing a much smaller panel just a little over a year ago. Now you are already disappointed with the 55 inch 1080P OLED display that you have never even put through it's paces, or read one detailed complete technical review about. You all sound ridiculous. You have no knowledge if they even were capable of turning out large 4K resolutions panels at all yet, or what sort of yield they are getting from the 1080P production.

And yes I know that one guy says he saw one of them at CES but that still is not test driving one, or having some skilled professional reviewer put one through it's paces.Why would anyone want to pay over 20K for a buggy first generation display, when there will be no 4K resolution material to show on it, for a long time yet?! They will have plenty of time to scale up both size and resolution before most of us will be ready to make a purchase, and long before there will be much 4K resolution product to watch on such a display. That is why I still consider you all to be just talking out of your @rses, with all due respect.
post #788 of 862
Not sure if this might affect the production of the displays or not. It happed in late August and they say that the have stopped production of those components to conduct an investigation of the accident.

"Explosion at LG Chem's OLED factory kills one employee, injures 14 others"

http://www.oled-info.com/explosion-lg-chems-oled-factory-kills-one-employee-injures-14-others

"LG Chem said that a large explosion broke out at their OLED production factory in Heungdeok District in Cheongju, North Chungcheong, Korea on August 24. One 26-years old employee was killed and 14 others were injured. This tragic accident happened when a large 200-liter drum that contained dioxane (a volatile substrate used in the manufacturing process) exploded due to unknown reasons.

The police are now investigating whether this is a case of poor equipment management and improper maintenance by LG Chem. This may also be due to negligence of workers at the factory. LG Chem said that while there's no problem to continue produce OLEDs in the factory, they have decided to stop operation until the investigation is over.


LG Chem is producing electron transport and hole injection materials used in OLED panels, and is also producing OLED lighting panels. The explosion probably took place in the material factory, not in the OLED lighting factory."
post #789 of 862
Aside from obviously being tragic for those killed and injured, that sounds like a delay for sure.
post #790 of 862
Obviously Samsung din't like the competition's advantage in OLED manufacturing...
post #791 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B. Goode View Post

Obviously Samsung din't like the competition's advantage in OLED manufacturing...

LG has an 'advantage' in OLED manufacturing over Samsung?
When did this happen?
post #792 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonyfan View Post

LG has an 'advantage' in OLED manufacturing over Samsung?
When did this happen?

When LG adopted a technique -- RGBW using "non-patterned" OLED material and color filters -- that requires no manufacturing advance to be developed. Samsung's RGB method uses a fine metal mask that is being moved, called small mask scanning, that has never been used in mass production. They need to do this because patterned RGBW using standard masks can't be done at TV sizes -- the masks can sag and the panels are ruined when they do. So they developed a method to move a smaller mask around, but that has its own problems and is a significant part of the reason why Samsung appears to be a bit behind LG in reaching market.
post #793 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

When LG adopted a technique -- RGBW using "non-patterned" OLED material and color filters -- that requires no manufacturing advance to be developed. Samsung's RGB method uses a fine metal mask that is being moved, called small mask scanning, that has never been used in mass production. They need to do this because patterned RGBW using standard masks can't be done at TV sizes -- the masks can sag and the panels are ruined when they do. So they developed a method to move a smaller mask around, but that has its own problems and is a significant part of the reason why Samsung appears to be a bit behind LG in reaching market.

So for the Samsung the clear/white pixel will be off (no current) for a zero black level?
With LG the clear/white pixel always has current, no zero black level?
post #794 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonyfan View Post

So for the Samsung the clear/white pixel will be off (no current) for a zero black level?
With LG the clear/white pixel always has current, no zero black level?

Samsung has no clear or white pixel, only R G and B pixels.

LG can shut off current to the white pixel whenever it wants and absolutely can achieve zero black level.
post #795 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

You people would have been delighted to hear that they were introducing a much smaller panel just a little over a year ago. Now you are already disappointed with the 55 inch 1080P OLED display that you have never even put through it's paces, or read one detailed complete technical review about. You all sound ridiculous. You have no knowledge if they even were capable of turning out large 4K resolutions panels at all yet, or what sort of yield they are getting from the 1080P production.
And yes I know that one guy says he saw one of them at CES but that still is not test driving one, or having some skilled professional reviewer put one through it's paces.Why would anyone want to pay over 20K for a buggy first generation display, when there will be no 4K resolution material to show on it, for a long time yet?! They will have plenty of time to scale up both size and resolution before most of us will be ready to make a purchase, and long before there will be much 4K resolution product to watch on such a display. That is why I still consider you all to be just talking out of your @rses, with all due respect.
A lot of things can happen in a year.

In the last year we’ve seen the introduction of a Retina iPad—2048×1536 with a density of 264 PPI.
We then saw the introduction of a Retina MacBook Pro—2880×1800 with a pixel density of 220 PPI.
4K LCDs (3840×2160) have been available for a couple of years now and more models are being introduced.
LCD sizes are ever increasing, and prices keep coming down.

Sorry, but I am just not impressed with a panel that is only 55″ in size, with a 1920×1080 resolution and a density of 40 PPI. Especially if that resolution has to be cut in half when displaying 3D.

55″ is too small for a high-end set, and too big to be affordable. I would actually be more excited about a smaller panel size if it meant I could buy one.

And even without 4K native content, there are still many advantages to a 4K native panel. It means full 1080p resolution with passive 3D, a significant reduction in screendoor, better looking blu-rays with upscaling, does a much better job of displaying photographs, and allows for 4K PC gaming. It also means that the set isn’t going to be outdated in a year or two when 4K native sources are more common.


Other than having so much money where $10K is nothing to you, or being so impatient that you can’t wait for future revisions, I see no reason to buy one of these OLED displays. I agree completely with Rogo’s post.
post #796 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

...
And even without 4K native content, there are still many advantages to a 4K native panel. It means full 1080p resolution with passive 3D, a significant reduction in screendoor, better looking blu-rays with upscaling, does a much better job of displaying photographs, and allows for 4K PC gaming. It also means that the set isn’t going to be outdated in a year or two when 4K native sources are more common....

Another advantage is that 720P material (eg. ESPN and ABC) can be scaled to integer number of pixels (1 to 3) rather than 1 to 1.5.

Ofcourse, probably nobody in this discussion cares about 720P. ...Just sayin'.
post #797 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by sooke View Post

Another advantage is that 720P material (eg. ESPN and ABC) can be scaled to integer number of pixels (1 to 3) rather than 1 to 1.5.
Ofcourse, probably nobody in this discussion cares about 720P. ...Just sayin'.
I didn’t even realise that—that’s huge for gamers if they offer a Nearest Neighbour scaling option. (i.e. sharp pixels rather than interpolated)
post #798 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

...
And even without 4K native content, there are still many advantages to a 4K native panel. It means full 1080p resolution with passive 3D, a significant reduction in screendoor, better looking blu-rays with upscaling, does a much better job of displaying photographs, and allows for 4K PC gaming. It also means that the set isn’t going to be outdated in a year or two when 4K native sources are more common.
Other than having so much money where $10K is nothing to you, or being so impatient that you can’t wait for future revisions, I see no reason to buy one of these OLED displays. I agree completely with Rogo’s post.

It seems to me that there's still a road block for 4k PC gaming. HDMI 1.4 is limited to 2160p24. I believe the only current standard way to connect 2160p60 to a 4k panel is with 4 single link DVI connections like those found on commerical 4k displays. Does Toshiba's 4k TV in Japan even have this option? This all reminds me of the first consumer 1080p TVs that would top out at 1080i for source inputs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I didn’t even realise that—that’s huge for gamers if they offer a Nearest Neighbour scaling option. (i.e. sharp pixels rather than interpolated)

I really doubt we'll see 3:1 scaling like this on any consumer 4k TVs. However, it might be possible with specialty scalers in the future (XRGB-4k? smile.gif ).
post #799 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb32 View Post

It seems to me that there's still a road block for 4k PC gaming. HDMI 1.4 is limited to 2160p24. I believe the only current standard way to connect 2160p60 to a 4k panel is with 4 single link DVI connections like those found on commerical 4k displays.
I’m pretty sure that both Nvidia and AMD’s current generation GPUs support 3GHz HDMI for 4K at 60Hz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb32 View Post

Does Toshiba's 4k TV in Japan even have this option? This all reminds me of the first consumer 1080p TVs that would top out at 1080i for source inputs!
Looking through the manual of the European 55ZL2, it doesn’t appear to accept a native 4K input, how disappointing. But there are other 4K displays on the market that will (not necessarily televisions though—monitors and projectors) and I bet the upcoming displays announced at IFA will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb32 View Post

I really doubt we'll see 3:1 scaling like this on any consumer 4k TVs. However, it might be possible with specialty scalers in the future (XRGB-4k? smile.gif ).
I’m not so sure. 1:1 mapping was a pretty popular feature with 1080p displays. I would hope that a nearest neighbour scaling option would be available—it would even make a lot of sense to implement that in their “game mode” for the displays, as I expect it would be considerably lower latency than any other kind of upscaling.
post #800 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

And obviously, this varies a lot for a lot of people. I now have a 65", which allows me to confirm I could certainly fit a 70". I could fit an 80", but it would dominate the wall so thoroughly and I'm not really sure I'd enjoy it so realistically my maximum size is 70-75". Again, this obviously varies. More people can accommodate a smaller size than a larger one, which is why the OLED is starting a 55". (It's also why Sharp's TVs very approximately sell in 10:1 ratios between the 60/70/80/90 sizes.)

My point was to challenge the notion that giant 80" screens with 4k conventional LCD are somehow in greater demand than a 55" OLED which is better in nearly every way. A few people will want their giant screens, yes, but that should be a very small percentage of customers if for no other reason than cost. Plus, there's no 4k content unless you are running a kilowatt PC system with SLI but I prefer to heat my home differently.
post #801 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I came across this comment by the Samsung President, made just a couple of days ago.
"Samsung's president further revealed that he sees transparent displays as the next emerging technology following OLED. Samsung thinks that ultra-definition is not going to be so important in the near future due to the lack of content."
Since Samsung and LG appear to be keeping track of what each is doing in OLED panels developments, this might indicate that LG will take the same position on OLED ultra-definition. We will have to see what the next CES show in January reveals.

Samsung's remarks seem to be spoken by a company that can't reasonably commercialize 4K OLED but can commercialize OLED, which is transparent by its nature. How transparent display are going to be "the next thing" is really unclear to me. I see limited applications that are very interesting for augmented reality. I don't see many other applications outside of advertising that are very interesting. As for LG, they are commercializing ultra definition now. And their OLED lends itself to 4K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoham View Post

My point was to challenge the notion that giant 80" screens with 4k conventional LCD are somehow in greater demand than a 55" OLED which is better in nearly every way. A few people will want their giant screens, yes, but that should be a very small percentage of customers if for no other reason than cost. Plus, there's no 4k content unless you are running a kilowatt PC system with SLI but I prefer to heat my home differently.

Your belief that 55" OLEDs are better "in nearly every way" is nothing more than an opinion. You dismiss 80" screens primarily on cost (I'd dismiss them on bigness, by the way), yet OLEDs are expected to cost 2x as much as my Costco will sell me an 80" Sharp for. Granted that's not 4K today, but it's pretty likely the market for $8000 55" TV is every bit as small as 80" TVs period.
post #802 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoham View Post

My point was to challenge the notion that giant 80" screens with 4k conventional LCD are somehow in greater demand than a 55" OLED which is better in nearly every way. A few people will want their giant screens, yes, but that should be a very small percentage of customers if for no other reason than cost. Plus, there's no 4k content unless you are running a kilowatt PC system with SLI but I prefer to heat my home differently.
55″ is pretty small as far as high end displays are concerned, and 4K even benefits lower resolution content.

And you must not be following PC hardware much these days. The current Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs are significantly more efficient now. A GTX 690—which is two 680s in SLI on a single card—will draw up to 300W max. Total system draw would be under 400W at full load. In fact, Anandtech puts a 690 system at 429W (at the wall, so more like 386W draw assuming 90% efficiency) and a single GTX 580 at 451W. (The 690 is about 2.5× the speed, depending on scalability)
post #803 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I came across this comment by the Samsung President, made just a couple of days ago.
"Samsung's president further revealed that he sees transparent displays as the next emerging technology following OLED. Samsung thinks that ultra-definition is not going to be so important in the near future due to the lack of content."
Funny thing that right there.

The film makers say the same thing, just "upside down".
Even when shooting or scanning(film) in 4K they they won't release it in 4K because of lack of 4K displays.
Result is that very many film makers choose to use 2K cameras because "it's good enough" and "there are not any 4K displays anyway". Forgetting that "future proofing" their material would be a good idea.

Resulting in an idiot situation where everybody are waiting for each other where "the chicken and the egg and the egg and the chicken" is in a deadlock.
post #804 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I did not bother to research it, but has Samsung demonstrated any such LCD models? I know that LG has.
LG, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung,Toshiba, Vitek (Turkey), Hisense, Haier (China) all showed 4K LCD TV at IFA. (might be more I haven't heard of.) The Samsung 4K TV is 70". Haier's 4K TV is the smallest at convenient 55".
post #805 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

LG, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung,Toshiba, Vitek (Turkey), Hisense, Haier (China) all showed 4K LCD TV at IFA. (might be more I haven't heard of.) The Samsung 4K TV is 70". Haier's 4K TV is the smallest at convenient 55".

Is Sharp not at IFA? Because they showed 4K back in January at CES. 60" was the demo, I believe.

The point is, 4K is clearly coming to TVs, and it seems to be coming faster than OLED.
post #806 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Is Sharp not at IFA?
I knew there was a name I had forgotten when I searched for 4K at IFA.redface.gif
Can't find anything about any 4K TV from Sharp at IFA, which is kind of strange.
Just some talk about the 90" HD TV, claimed as being the "World largest LCD (ICC-LED) TV".
Maybe all their 4K and 8K TV's are still in London serving the Para Olympics?

When googling 4K I get the impression that Sony has bought the top spot in google search for the term "4K". tongue.gif

Found something else; a Sharp report from IFA about IGZO, which is neither related to this LG OLED thread nor to 4K, but interesting anyway.
post #807 of 862
if neither lg or sammy can get their oled to market in the next 6 months, they might as well use that time to upgrade to 4k given the nominal cost
post #808 of 862
Since they can not even manufacture the 55 inch 1080P units and ship them out, then they should instead manufacture the much more difficult ultra-resolutions panels instead, and start cranking them out soon. Brilliant!

Send in that suggestion to both companies. The engineers could probably use a good laugh right about now.
post #809 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

LG, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung,Toshiba, Vitek (Turkey), Hisense, Haier (China) all showed 4K LCD TV at IFA. (might be more I haven't heard of.) The Samsung 4K TV is 70". Haier's 4K TV is the smallest at convenient 55".

That pretty much contradicts what the Samsung President said about not wanting to start manufacturing 4K OLED panels because of there being no ultra-definition material to show on it, since his own company is introducing a 4K LCD model. I suspect that he may have used that excuse because they are still having trouble manufacturing just the 1080P OLED units at this time, and are not in a position to make higher resolution panels.
post #810 of 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

That pretty much contradicts what the Samsung President said about not wanting to start manufacturing 4K OLED panels because of there being no ultra-definition material to show on it, since his own company is introducing a 4K LCD model. I suspect that he may have used that excuse because they are still having trouble manufacturing just the 1080P OLED units at this time, and are not in a position to make higher resolution panels.

I think that's very correct. LG could probably have done 4K OLED, however, if they'd just decided to do that from the get go. I doubt their yields would be very different on backplanes. On color filters, they'd be more or less identical.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › LG Official Announces 55" OLED for CES-