Shockingly bad news for the future of affordable large format OLED displays - Page 4

There is little purpose in an interpolated frame rate of 480. Even 240 interpolated frames is diminishing returns over 120, but it's nice because it's a clean multiple of 48, for example, which might matter down the road. Strobing along with interpolating gets you past 240 today, which is why you see sets with 960 "refresh".

240 is a big improvement over 120 actually; it's what sold me on buying a higher-end set when I had only planned on buying a mid-range TV. The shop I was at had a 60, 120, and 240Hz set all running off the same feed next to each other, and there was a huge difference in clarity. (and it also showed how Sony's MotionFlow mostly avoided the "soap opera" effect)

Interpolation still has its place today, because it allows you to improve motion resolution without increasing flicker on the display, which backlight scanning does, and it helps reduce judder from low framerate sources. (24/25/30p)

You're both right. Even though possibly dramatic, there's a diminishing returns from 120 to 240, and that return would continue to shrink. You can't possibly get incremental quality 1:1 with interpolated frames forever. Interpolation can and will increase, but asymptotically.
Edited by tgm1024 - 12/23/12 at 7:36am

My post was correct as it stood. Diminishing returns does not mean no returns.

And the fact is, most people will never see the difference between 240Hz and 120Hz.

As I said.

Couldn't agree more. I've never seen a difference between 120 & 240. Regardless of source, display, content, etc. I find it to be an absurd spec and one that provides no real world improvement.

The difference was just as striking between the 120Hz and 240Hz panels, as it was with the 60Hz and 120Hz panels.
I do agree that we will probably see diminishing returns if we were to move to 480Hz, but I also think there is merit to doing so.

In artificial tests where resolution can be measured, you usually see it jump from "300 lines" at 60Hz, to "600 lines" at 120Hz, and "1200 lines" at 240Hz. That doesn't seem like diminished returns at all.

As you increase the framerate with interpolation, you are further increasing motion sharpness without the need to introduce backlight scanning. So the higher the framerate on the panel, the less flicker required for the same level of motion sharpness.
Flicker on most of these 480/960Hz panels that use a combination of interpolation plus backlight scanning is very low - to the point that most people see it as a stable image. I can still detect some flicker though, if I am looking for it, or if it's late at night and I'm maybe getting a bit tired. (I seem very sensitive to it then) So moving to a higher framerate and using less backlight scanning would be preferable to me. It's certainly a lot less flicker than Plasma has though, I can't tolerate watching them in a darkened room at all.
The demo I saw was hooked up to a splitter, so you could use any source with it. (such as the store's live TV feed) There was a dramatic real-world benefit to 240Hz over 120Hz.

Have you actually done a demo like that with three sets next to each other? Most people that claim there's no difference, have not.
And of course it depends entirely on what manufacturer you're looking at, because they all do things differently.

I've seen side by side with Sony, Samsung, & Sharp 120's vs 240's. I saw no difference, whether it was Sony's "MotionFlow", Samsung's "ClearMotion Rate" or Sharp's "Aquomotion Plus." I would consider these 3 mfcts. the biggest players in the LCD FP business. Only dog(s) in the fight I haven't seen a side by side with is L.G.and Toshiba.

And that's precisely the point. Artificial tests.

In reality, where you ask people where they see resolution as twice as good on the 240Hz vs. the 120Hz, they don't.

In reality, they don't see much of a different -- typically -- at all.

There are outliers who see an extreme difference, but that's true of any marginal technological improvement.

The problem of OLED or any other tech trying to take over is never-ending improvement of LCD. Samsung and LG were trying to push 55" OLED. In the meantime 55" LCD became commodity, 65" is the starting size for high-end. Thus, any OLED able to compete in this segment would have to be 65". But now LCD is moving into high density and so a competing OLED would have to be at least 65" and 4K. This obviously is not the end as LCD is moving into the 100" range. Thus OLED can't beat LCD on size and pixel density while at the same time LCD PQ parameters are improving to the point consumers do not crave for more. Same with pocket displays, 1080 LCD @5" is becoming the next norm and competing OLED would have to be 1080 which is hard. There is thus no place for OLED to compete since there is nowhere a clear advantage to be seen. Or maybe there is just one place left for OLED which LCD can not fill easily: flexible displays.
Edited by irkuck - 12/26/12 at 2:35am

Artificial tests give measurable results that disprove the "diminishing returns" argument. The visual results with real-world content were just as striking when going from 120Hz to 240Hz as 60Hz to 120Hz were, as I have already stated.

With respect my view is that TV size has little bearing on picture quality. Comparing size for size, a 55" OLED will display a far better picture than 55" LCD/LED or Plasma.

A 100" LCD/LED would be great, so long as the LEDs are back-lit, but would incur a cost penalty. I do agree that LCD/LED will continue for some years. I just hope someone produces a 55" plus TV with full array LEDs with a plenty of dimming zones.

As for Ultra Definition; an 84" LCD/LED is current technology, not a leap forward. And I am not sure I could manage a glorified edge-lit TV that weighs 150lbs. :eek

My thoughts are that LG and Samsung believed they could produce 55" OLED, which they have not been able to do - yet. Nevertheless OLED technology or something similar is the way forward.

Of course PQ is in not related to the displays size. But high-end segment is almost synonymous with impressive size. Since OLED TV has to be launched in the high-end segment /just due to the price/ it has
to be of a proper size. Here comes the pressure from the LCD: 55" is too small nowadays, 65" must be there. In other words most of the high-end buyers will select top 65" LCD over the 55" OLED and thus the potential market for OLED is cut-off. The same is with the 4K vs. 2K.

First, history shows that any price penalty of the LCD due to the size is short living. Second, LCD with full array local dimming is extincting, consumers do not care about it and edge-lit is perfected all the time.

One can suspect that equally strong argument against launching the 55" OLED was dying market due to the insufficient size (and high price). They could launch limited batch of 55" sets but they could not afford marketing flop of OLEDs not selling.

Regarding the weight of the 80"+ behemoths they require a crew for installation which is just against the stereotype that one can install a TV with own hands but people will accept this as a fact of life.

Yup. And truly flexible displays with any meaningful application to flexibility remain years away. Samsung appears to be focused on commercializing unbreakability in the short run, which is not, but hardly critical.

For you and some tiny number of people perhaps. For mainstream consumers? Hardly.

Far better? No. Slightly better? Sure.

It's weird that LCD is getting so good without even bothering with full-array, local dimming. And while you raise a good point about weight, we've long discussed how little that matters -- once you've installed, you've installed.

I tend to agree that I don't understand how they will be marketing the first OLEDs at all at this point,. Not big, not high resolution... Not impressive...

"Better contrast"... "Light weight".... "Prodigious pricing"....

It's a very narrow marketing message.

what really is the benefit of 4k technology? if the content was native then i would definently get excited. literally no one has mentioned 4k content for 4k tv's. So where is the demand coming from? this is about as useless as glasses with 3dtv.

^A question that is not supposed to be asked. We're supposed to be hypnotized into believing 4K was needed yesterday.

I think 4K has benefit for people who want truly large panels. Even if the content is 2k upscaled, it is better on 4K. And native content will come.

Apropos of that, my impression of the Sharp 90 inch was, that though impressive, there is some image break up if you get close enough to emulate the movie theater experience.

For smaller sizes I don't think 4K is such a big issue.

Happy Mid-Holidays!

^There you go...somewhere around 60-70" (YMMV) and up I imagine it could become beneficial. It'll be interesting to see how beneficial upscaling is in the interim (before the native material arrives). The 55" inchers set to be released any day now () don't really need the gimmick aside from another marketing bullet point.

LCD is getting so good compared to what?

The Elite is good. Most of the rest are not. And that they are not using the more advanced "local dimming" is certainly not a positive.

The Panasonic plasmas are impressive this year, but if I'm close I can see the pixel structure, which is very un-movie-like. And if I have to sit farther away, what is the point of having a large screen? Where is the home theater aspect?

OLED, emissive, and with its big viewing angles, massive contrast, and true blacks is actually exciting. Even if the initial releases were to be too small and too low resolution for a non-projector, it would be a start. Finally a break from the dismal AV blah of so many years now...This news about OLED is just depressing....

Samsung 8500 is excellent if you can find one.Issue of off center seating is a problem so you need to sit dead center to get full pq benefits.

One small benefit is for displays over 100" if people use them in their living rooms, viewing distance will be then 2-2.5 PH which is the range where the 4K definition shows up. There is also a headroom problem: 1080 will be very soon common in pocket displays and the retina push will continue in tablets and laptops. Then a 1080 HDTV will look like a poor cousin and the 4K will be a proper headroom to add.

Pure marketing but in this context it is hard to see a place for the "mere 2K" OLED if marketing will be bombarding people with the 4K. OLED would have to be pumped up to 4K to match but this is sci-fi at this point. Even in pocket devices OLED is facing next-to-impossible ride to match the 1080 LCDs. This is why Samsung will try to differentiate by introducing curved OLED devices.

Maybe in America. Outside the States, many would argue that 55″ is too big, where 46″ panels are the most common size. (This is why the high-end sets all start at that size)
Other than bachelors living in America, I doubt you will see much adoption of televisions that size. Even as designs improve, and sets get thinner, something like that will completely dominate a room.

Once you go much over 50″ or so, I would much rather have a projector where you just have a white screen on the wall, a drop-down screen, or you can even project straight onto the wall. (Though it is less than optimal)
The same argument could be made about any further display advances beyond current LCD technology at this point. The mass market seems satisfied enough with them.
I’m not sure where you got that idea from. Most LCD development has stagnated with IPS unchanging for years now, and few panels improving over 2000:1 native contrast. (I think only Sharp’s UV2A panels are better) Nothing seems to have been done to improve uniformity outside of full array local dimming sets, which are disappearing.
I think that is becoming a problem for the industry in general. There’s not much anyone could do that would entice people to upgrade their sets now—certainly nothing that would justify a significant price increase.
4K should help to reduce the visibility of pixels/aliasing on the display, even with 1080p content. PC sources already have some 4K content (and can output 4K with the desktop/games) and Red has announced their 4K Redray system for 2013. Sony already has upscaling players for sale. Cameras can already shoot 4K video, and still photographs have been 8MP or higher for years. 4K also allows for passive 3D to display a full resolution 1080p image, and would also allow for two people to watch their own 3840x1080 image simultaneously.
And that’s why I hope 4K becomes affordable quickly. I think even people that are derisive of 4K will realise how big a deal it is once they actually see it.

We are talking about the top of high-end. This starts at 65" now everywhere though volumes are low. Now, pricey OLED could be considered by buyers in this segment. But seeing lots of 65"+ LCDs and 55" OLED they won't bend to OLED.

Somehow huge sets become more and more acceptable. It starts kinda looking that small sets are becoming tasteless . Similar sign on the mobile side: it was once fashionable to have as small device as possible but now the glass acreage must be impressive.

Benefits of 4K TV are close to nil unless one has display so big it forces watching in the living room at a distance well below 3PH.

On the other hand with the tendency to dense displays, the 4K becomes marketing nuclear weapon:

'So what is the res of the display in your smartphone?'- asks the TV salesman
'Of course it is full, genuine 1080p' - proudly replies buyer-to-be
'Excellent, then it is clear for you having the same res on your TV would be weird
and now we have the 4K Ultra HD to solve this problem'
'Oh I see it now, obviously the full 4K Ultra HD is a must for me'

I'm pretty sure the high-end still starts at 46″ in Europe, though it may be shifting towards 50″ now.

60″ and larger sets are only popular in America.

Only on Android, and the primary reason driving that was the fact that, at least earlier versions of Android, did not scale the UI with resolution, so when screen resolution went up, they had to increase the size or else things would start to get too small.

I'm not alone in thinking that it was a mistake for Apple to switch to 16:9 with the iPhone 5, preferring the 3:2 iPhone 4S display for single-handed use. It's too big now, and I don't have small hands. The size of Android devices is getting ridiculous these days.

Referring to OLED one should think about the top-high-end, people ready to splurge many 000's on their sets. This is different segment from the 46" high-end which is price conscious. The top-high-end won't buy 55" OLEDs when there is plenty of 65"+ LCDs around.

The trend to bigger displays is clear and Apple had to give up to it in part. It is the Android market which will dictate the fashion, Apple is moving into a niche. Those newest 1080 Androids with supernarrow display border and device bezel will be quite handy and winning.

At the beginning when they are costing tens of thousands, I agree that the people likely to be able to afford them probably want larger displays. But outside of the states, most people do not buy anything larger than 50″ and more commonly, 46″ panels.
Too bad people's hands aren't growing in size at the same rate as these Android phones…

No, you're certainly not alone. However IMO, what the iPhone display desperately needed was more width, not better ability to watch 16:9 content.

If you mean Android phones, sure, unless it's what you want. Yep, people holding these ridiculous 5.3" displays up to their heads for a phone conversation looks bizarre as hell, especially for, say, a small frame girl, but if what you want is something that can better double as an eReader or tablet, then it might be the perfect tradeoff. Maybe for students? For yucks, here's Samsung's new 5.5" Galaxy note next to their previously dinky 5.3" () version. Looks normal until you see a hand on it. Aye yi yi....
Edited by tgm1024 - 12/30/12 at 11:24am

You won't say that as you get older. My 4.8" Galaxy SIII looks pretty damn good to me.

I don't have large hands and have absolutely no problem negotiating the screen real estate. Web pages look sooo much better.

The Galaxy S3 is big, but not stupid big like a Galaxy Note.

As Irkuck said, truly high-end sets are not available at 46". In most mfrs. lines, they start at 55".
You might, but realistically, projectors are not a substitute for flat panels for most people outside the enthusiast community. That doesn't make them bad. I'm talking reality.
Yes, but small improvements come with time anyway, which is nice. It doesn't entice many to upgrade, but it means 2013's model is different from 2012's.
IGZO is coming. That's new. Whether or not uniformity improvements in the next couple of years is TBD. On small sizes, of course, uniformity is plenty good. Sharp, at least, has massively improved edge-lit uniformity in recent years.
Right, it's a huge problem for everyone.
I'm with you more or less. Small but real benefits.

Someone with a Galaxy note could probably make the same comparison with another device. I think the size of the Galaxy S3 is ridiculous, and have held off buying an iPhone 5 specifically because of the increased size, and switch to a 16:9 aspect ratio.
I also dislike the choice of materials & finish used on them compared to the iPhone 4S. Thin aluminium with a very thin anodized coating.


In America. This does seem to be changing, as Panasonic don't seem to offer a 46″ VT50 this year, but they did offer a 46″ VT30 last year. Now they start at 50″ for the VT50 range, and seem to have dropped the Z series altogether.
Sony's HX900 and HX920 were available in 46″ and the HX950 does not appear to be available there yet, so I'm not sure if it will be available below 55″)
LG's Nano LED range starts at 47″
Toshiba's Cell-powered local-dimming TVs start at 42″ (though you could argue that their "high end" is the flagship 55" 4K panel)
Samsung's 8000 series starts at 42″ but they seem to have also introduced a 74″ "9000" series panel.
I'm not sure what's going on with Sharp, as they seem to have a very limited selection on their website now. (preparation for CES?) But as you go bigger with them, you are not necessarily going higher-end. (Sharp seem to be focusing on producing cheap large panels over quality now)

In Japan, I think there is an even wider range of small-size high end panels.
Outside of America, 60″ and up is not popular, when in America it seems to be a rush to produce the cheapest 80″ or larger panels.
Not in their current state, but once we have affordable LED or Laser light sources where you never have to consider lamp life, and short-throw projectors with flexible placement, I can see projectors becoming a more popular option, especially as the demand for larger image sizes increases, unless manufacturers can do something about their TVs being a huge black slab on the wall when they're switched off.
I would argue that the performance of LCD has gone backwards in recent years. We've had some good panel improvements offset by cost-cutting (Sony switching from UV2A back to Samsung panels) and the rise in popularity of ever-thinner edge-lit sets, which seem to further prove that the general public at large cares more about thinness than uniformity, or other aspects of image quality. Some manufacturers have improved their products, such as Sharp improving their uniformity as you say, but overall it seems to be getting worse as sets get thinner.
That's true. What I should have said is that LCD performance has stagnated. Contrast, viewing angles, and uniformity seems to have mostly plateaued with very little improvement coming from anyone other than Sharp.