Samsung's 2012 OLED sets! - Page 3

Well that would cut my "right rate" down from about 95%. I can live with that, especially since I am confident there will be some global availability from LG and I like competition.

Can't come soon enough for me - I really need to replace both my TV and my BR player in the bedroom.

Samsung 55" OLED MSRP will be $7,900 MSRP. I suggest the going rate will be more than that for a long time due to limited availability because of limited manufacturing resource.

Hahah, at that price point it looks I don't have to worry about it becoming an option for me anytime soon and can pull the trigger on a 60" Panny ST50 without feeling stupid in 1-2 years.

I kind of agree. When they get down to 4-5k maybe I'll bite. And the displays would have to be PERFECT. I mean, I paid 1500$ canadian back in 2008 for my panny 46 incher, and that was after doing price matches. Paying triple the price I better get a huge leap in video quality.

Or I could wait for a 70 inch, non-3d glasses tech with 120 hz inputs and 4k HD. ....4K is a big upgrade for me, even 3D. I do 3d programming and live for that stuff.

The Hobbit @48hz and Avatar 2 @ 60hz FTW!!! Can't wait. Those movies will definitely have 4K versions available eventually. All 35MM film can be sampled at that rez, can't they? Probably need a ton of film grain noise removal, there are algorithms like non-local means denoising that can get rid of that type of noise without adding blur to complex patterned areas.

I am pro-4k and 48fps but even then I would think there would be more OLED TV than 4k 48Hz TV in 3 years' time. Legacy compatibility, structural issue and industry standards, coupled with "1080p-milking" are not so easily overcome.

Assuming that a 2012 60" 3D plasma will be in the $1500-$1800 range by say November that would put the 2012 60" 3D OLED in the $3500-$3800 range. In my experience with buyers I would say that many could afford the jump because you're still under $4000 so if the OLED's performance delivers what we think it will then quite a few would move up to the OLED. The stumbling block would be the size limit of 60". If LG or Sammy can bring a 65+" to the market in the $4500 range then you would see some serious movement to OLED. The 50" to 70" OLED with those prices would greatly hasten the demise of LCD and plasma. I don't think we'll see those prices or those sizes before November 2015.

I just got an oled display. I watched a PBS show last night on observing the Sun. It looked really great. My display has two tiny 0.7" oled screens at 720p viewed through lenses -- it looks to me like a 100" screen.

I kinda doubt there will be a 60" OLED next year or that it will be $3500. Well, more that kinda, but anyway.

Where is the market research that say's mass of amount of people want $4,500 60" and above displays?

I think days of high priced flat panels are over.

I found the following pasted quotation at the link below. The article is regarding LG OLED and says LG hopes to sell 55'' OLED panels for $4000 in 2013.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/LG-Displ...ews-14022.html

I wouldn't doubt that's a goal. Of course, the linked article is from January so it's already a bit "old" as such things go.

I suspect they have a better indication already of what realistic pricing looks like.

It's worth noting that statements in the quoted material like "we can make 50,000 TVs a month conservatively once we get started" are more or less nonsense. They'd be fortunate to reach that kind of production within 6 months.

But anyway, on the larger issue, I think it's possible they'll reach a goal of halving the price in the second year. A lot will need to happen, of course. We'll learn much more once they are actually selling TVs worldwide.

Interesting that you so categorically can state that it's nonsense. Obviously you have some insider insight into LG production?

I have more than enough knowledge of the display industry to tell you -- categorically -- that you don't ramp production from 0 units of something you've never built before to 50,000 units per month overnight. In fact, I doubt they ever even implied they could do so.

I'm sure the comments in that old article are taken wildly out of context.

It's certainly possibly that they'll reach that production threshold over several months as I suggested. In the first month? Not possible.

One thing I can further clue you in on: If they can make 8000 substrates (good for 48,000 screens), you'd need perfect yield to make that many TVs. Yield initially will likely not break 50%. Normally, it's much lower than that, but the production process is not especially rocket science, so 50% is -- admittedly -- something of a guess. But there is simply no metaphysical possibility of 100% yields out the gate.

"This technology is Samsung's Small Mask Scanning, used to produce AMOLED on large substrates."

So LG is accused of stealing a technology it has no intention of using. LOL if true.

Actually it's pretty funny to read these topics entirely.
Seeing the trolls turn their coat from page to page is hilarious.

5 months ago :

"LOL, samsung can't mass produce 50" yet, I know for sure"

Samsung and LG announce 55" available later this year for 9,000$ and 5,000$ a piece.

*trolls backpedaling and doing all sorts of damage controls*

What I know for sure, is that the internet is full of crap and people who think they know everything. I honestly believe LG/Samsung engineers have other things to do than come and debate with blind peoples/trolls on forums about their technology.

And if you're not part of it, I hardly doubt you would be able to know for sure whats going on in their labs and factories. Stating otherwise makes you look like an idiot (or obviously you have medium talents).

OLED will have the same chances than any other display technology.

LCD had it's chances, the results after all these years are pretty mediocre and it didn't even beat the old plasma. Now we're using all sorts of different technologies to try and save the poor performances of the LCD (LED, etc..) but the fact is, it already reached its limits. After 10 years on the market, this is what we have : clouding, grey blacks, motion lag, "bleeding back light", unnatural colors, etc..

The plasma is heavy, greedy, and the performances are far from OLED's (yes, even for the Kuro).

The OLED is showing impressive numbers and PQ from the start, try and imagine what OLED panels could bring in 5-10 years when the technology will be improved. Yes, it will even blow the good old CRT out of the water.

This is the difference between the OLED and the past technologies introduced (Plasma, LCD, SED, etc..), none has shown such promising performances and numbers since the CRT (which is a long time ago).

And yes, Samsung and LG are starting to mass produce 55" models for this year. I'm just a well informed consumer, I'm not pretending to know everything, just reading the press/numbers and using common sens.

This is basics in manufacturing, whatever the product is, it's impossible to reach full potential in the first few weeks.
LCD's, Plasmas, CRT's had the same problems when they appeared on the market.

You don't build a whole chain of production from nothing and expect to have 100% success.
It's not an exception to OLED.

My $9000 says you'd name the wrong people as the trolls here.

my $9000 says youre one of the trolls.

27,493 posts and your calling him a troll

Doesn't mean he cant troll.
You have a lot to learn about the human race.

Do you realise you are contradicting yourself in the latter part with the first part? How do you come to those conclusions if you are not an engineer?

My purpose is not to belittle you but that there are evidences and chatters in the industry that we can make good guesstimates. From all your posts in this forum (not this thread alone) I can also guesstimate that you have been selling TV for some time, but not long enough.

OLED did not have a good start if you've read the MAIN OLED thread in its entirety. PMOLED was a flop.

What conclusions ? What contradictions ?

And no, I'm not an engineer, and I didn't know I need to be one to state the obvious.
At least if you're attacking me, do it properly.

For eg how do you conclude "none has shown such promising performances"? I think most of them has shown excellent performances. Just that they can't be commercially manufactured for various reasons ie they are prototypes in lab environments. Do you think Sony's Crystal LED is not showing "promise"?

If you think I am "attacking" you so be it. Point is if you have take things into context instead of jumping the gun or be antagonistic. This is a relative nice sub-forum with few posts and relatively knowledgeable posters to follow closely. The irony is of course I am one of the first OLED believer in this forum some 2 years ago.

If you read my post carefully, you'll see I quote those "past technologies that didn't show such promising performances". Meaning, display technologies that were introduced to the market (Plasma, LCD, etc..).

I'm not an expert, but from what I could read about Crystal LED, the numbers introduced are much inferior to the OLED.

So my statement about the promising performances is still standing.

Just so we're clear, human visual perception is limited to very approximately 10^5:1 in simultaneous contrast. While humans are capable of millions to one in sequential contrast, the relevance of that to watching a TV in a dark room given the speed of iris adjustment is actually fairly low.

Oh, anyway, back to that 10^5 to 1 thing... OLED TVs will likely deliver that. As far as I know, that's very approximately an order of magnitude better than what existing TVs can do (the Sharp Elite can do about 15K:1, which I think is about the best out there). So it's an upgrade in the making. But we're talking about that one "zero" mattering -- on some very select content that actually has that much dynamic range.

The "zeroes" beyond that? They are not going to matter for video reproduction. And quite frankly, if your TV starts routinely offering something you can actually see and then something that is 1-10 million times brighter, you will find this more painful than interesting. And after the eye experiences it a few times, it's going to go into defensive mode.

@Rogo,
Are there enough bits in digital video to produce 10^5:1 contrast in an image?

Most digital video probably lacks that much contrast on a per-image basis. Compression algorithms have a tendency to remove dynamic range to some extent.

But that said, I'm very hopeful that well-produced BluRays are going to look noticeably better on a good OLED TV vs. whatever we can buy today. I'm also realistic enough to know (a) a lot of people won't see a difference and (b) a lot of source material won't really benefit from a better display than what we currently have.

But (b) isn't a reason to avoid seeking better displays (nor is (a) really). Instead, (b) is a reason to push for better content.

dudes, don't come into a thread and start calling some of our most knowledgeable members trolls. like wtf???

spec and rogo know a hell of a lot more than any of us.

feel free to post your thoughts but don't start bashing other members.

that just bad form and discourteous.