or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 95

post #2821 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

well first smart phone displays, next pad displays, then monitors, possibly large size displays. we can hope. there is some room for optimism given oleds are already on electronic devices including the new motorola droid razrs.

much more tangible progress than we ever saw from sed, and oled certainly
will prove economical in small dispays, but whether i will ever be able to watch nfl games on a large, reasonably affordable, oled display remains a question that no one knows the answer to right now

I certainly agree. I look forward with hope to seeing OLED "make it."

I've just come to realize it'll be much longer in making it to the lighting market, and the 50"+ TV market. I just don't see much chance that we'll see 50"+ TVs at a price I could even consider in 2012. Maybe 2015? We really don't know. I'm just hoping that a year from now we'll have more of a basis to make estimates.

And I very much hope this won't be another "nuclear power will be too cheap to meter."
post #2822 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

I never gave any numbers.

Um, yes you did. I quoted the difference between average plasma and LED LCD power consumption, and you said "now multiply that by a billion." The result is a very real and concrete number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

And your assumption that people's sets are calibrated when comparing power consumption is beyond ludicrous. The vast majority of people pull their TVs out of the box and barely tweak brightness and contrast. Only techno freaks like reside here will bother to even use something like Video Essentials to setup their TV, much less bring in better equipment to get it done right.

Okay, use uncalibrated power consumption, I don't care. But yet again, you claim massive power savings for OLED over plasma or LED LCD, but you have yet to provide a single data point to back up your claim. Continually trumpeting "power savings" and "green tech" in relation to OLED doesn't make it so, especially in the absence of any meaningful data.
post #2823 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

[*]OLED is power on demand and HT displays may utilize an ABL
[*]OLED has to optimize flicker, hold-time, and brightness (the Sony 11" display is a flicker machine)

I thought ABL is due to plasma inefficient 6lumens tech? Will OLED be that inefficient?

As to flicker, is that an inherent OLED issue or Sony circuit issue?
post #2824 of 9446
Thought you guys might enjoy this video. A multi-drop test of the iPhone 4S and the Samsung Galaxy S2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKxg...layer_embedded
post #2825 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Um, yes you did. I quoted the difference between average plasma and LED LCD power consumption, and you said "now multiply that by a billion." The result is a very real and concrete number.



Okay, use uncalibrated power consumption, I don't care. But yet again, you claim massive power savings for OLED over plasma or LED LCD, but you have yet to provide a single data point to back up your claim. Continually trumpeting "power savings" and "green tech" in relation to OLED doesn't make it so, especially in the absence of any meaningful data.


You people are crazy. I never made any massive claim for the power savings of OLED. I said take whatever savings there are and multiply them by the number of displays out there.
post #2826 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

You've obviously never owned a TV like this. It sucks. Consumers hate it. They used to do it. People hate it. They will never bring back this terrible idea because people hate it because it sucks. Again, sorry I know more about the history of TVs than you do.

Do you realise that the base of those LG OLED displays folded up and was what mounted the display to the wall?

As the kind of person that wants to minimise cable clutter, putting the inputs in the base rather than on the back of the display helps a lot if you aren't putting it on the wall, and it helps make the displays far more stable by moving most of the weight in the base, compared to how unstable most TVs are these days.

With wireless HDMI, having a separate input box makes wall-mounting a TV considerably easier than it is now. (and OLED's thin profile and low weight helps even more)
post #2827 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I thought ABL is due to plasma inefficient 6lumens tech? Will OLED be that inefficient?

ABL is standard on both CRT and PDP because it not only keeps peak power in check but also dramatically lengthens lifetime depending on usage. I would be very surprised if OLED does not use some form of limiter (current limiter or something). I've seen a chart from Sony showing the XEL-1 does have an ABL. Without a limiter the XEL-1 would have more than double the peak power consumption (white screen) of an LCD IIRC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

As to flicker, is that an inherent OLED issue or Sony circuit issue?

OLED is similar to LCD that it is TFT controlled and thus can sample and hold to maximize brightness (CRT and PDP cannot do this). Sony chose to reduce the hold time and introduce flicker to maximize motion resolution AFAIK. Other OLED products in the future may choose to use full hold + interpolation instead.
post #2828 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

You people are crazy. I never made any massive claim for the power savings of OLED. I said take whatever savings there are and multiply them by the number of displays out there.

Then at best, your reply to my original statement was poorly phrased, at best.

Once again, exactly what (if any) power savings would we see from OLED? Do you have any figures at all? Or are you just going to insist it is so and leave it at that? Given the rate that my OLED display on my Samsung Fascinate ate my battery (and generated heat) at usable daytime light output settings, forgive me if I'm not quick to jump on the low power consumption OLED train.
post #2829 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

ABL is standard on both CRT and PDP because it not only keeps peak power in check but also dramatically lengthens lifetime depending on usage. I would be very surprised if OLED does not use some form of limiter (current limiter or something). I've seen a chart from Sony showing the XEL-1 does have an ABL. Without a limiter the XEL-1 would have more than double the peak power consumption (white screen) of an LCD IIRC.

The Sony would have been an all-fluorescent OLED display. No relation to the OLED displays being made now with PHOLED red and/or green.
post #2830 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Then at best, your reply to my original statement was poorly phrased, at best.

Once again, exactly what (if any) power savings would we see from OLED? Do you have any figures at all? Or are you just going to insist it is so and leave it at that? Given the rate that my OLED display on my Samsung Fascinate ate my battery (and generated heat) at usable daytime light output settings, forgive me if I'm not quick to jump on the low power consumption OLED train.

I already posted this - did you care to rebut its data? Why wouldn't these savings apply to large-screen OLED as they do to small screen OLED?

http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=605

post #2831 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Until an actual large OLED display is released with power usage stats provided, which can be confirmed by Independent reviews, isn't all this back and forth about how much energy they will save, just a waste of time.

They will use the amount of energy that they will use, when they are actually released, and until that time comes................................

That's my entire point - pdoherty is claiming something he can't provide data for. Maybe OLEDs will provide an improvement in power consumption, maybe it won't. LED LCD tech is evolving every year and getting more energy efficient...by the time OLED comes to market as a viable, affordable commercial display solution, we have no idea how the two techs will compare in terms of power consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

I already posted this - did you care to rebut its data? Why wouldn't these savings apply to large-screen OLED as they do to small screen OLED?

http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=605

That company was founded in 1993 and conducts research into OLED tech for use by other companies. Can you name a single display - of any size - that uses all (or ANY) of the tech that you specifically quoted in the chart above? I can't find any information that would indicate that these are more than tech demos - certainly not techs that are mature for commercial, large-scale production. You're comparing a tech that is currently in production to one that isn't anywhere near. It's an absolutely worthless comparison. You might as well include potential figures SED or 20w/lumen tech for plasma.
post #2832 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

That's my entire point - pdoherty is claiming something he can't provide data for. Maybe OLEDs will provide an improvement in power consumption, maybe it won't. LED LCD tech is evolving every year and getting more energy efficient...by the time OLED comes to market as a viable, affordable commercial display solution, we have no idea how the two techs will compare in terms of power consumption.

I just gave you the data in the chart above. That data directly applies to the current OLED displays being made and sold. (see below)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

That company was founded in 1993 and conducts research into OLED tech for use by other companies. Can you name a single display - of any size - that uses all (or ANY) of the tech that you specifically quoted in the chart above? I can't find any information that would indicate that these are more than tech demos - certainly not techs that are mature for commercial, large-scale production. You're comparing a tech that is currently in production to one that isn't anywhere near. It's an absolutely worthless comparison. You might as well include SED or 20w/lumen tech for plasma.

You couldn't be more wrong. That company (Universal Display) owns over 1200 patents on OLED and is the source of the screen technology Samsung has in every one of their OLED displays, including the Galaxy S phones and dozens of others. Samsung is currently using PHOLED red and gave the PHOLED green the go-ahead and the new phones this year and next will have both PHOLED red *and* green in them.

So you can DIRECTLY pull the numbers from the chart I showed you and those are the power savings with OLED displays since every OLED display that uses phosphoresent OLEDs is using Universal Display's PHOLED materials and tech/IP.
post #2833 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Samsung is currently using PHOLED red and gave the PHOLED green the go-ahead and the new phones this year and next will have both PHOLED red *and* green in them.

Do you have a source for this?

**Edit: Just Googling "Samsung OLED Universal" turns up a BUNCH of press releases from 23 August, 2011 that indicate that Samsung and Universal just entered into a contract allowing Samsung to license patents and techs developed by Universal. I can't find anything indicating that Samsung has used Universal tech prior to this date. If that's the case, I find it had to believe that Samsung has already implemented any of Universal's PHOLED tech in any of their displays. If you have an agreement or example of Samsung's use of this tech that predates what I found - and supports what you said above - I'd be happy to take a look.
post #2834 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Do you have a source for this?

**Edit: Just Googling "Samsung OLED Universal" turns up a BUNCH of press releases from 23 August, 2011 that indicate that Samsung and Universal just entered into a contract allowing Samsung to license patents and techs developed by Universal. I can't find anything indicating that Samsung has used Universal tech prior to this date. If that's the case, I find it had to believe that Samsung has already implemented any of Universal's PHOLED tech in any of their displays. If you have an agreement or example of Samsung's use of this tech that predates what I found - and supports what you said above - I'd be happy to take a look.

Samsung has been licensing and using UDC's tech since 2006. Their initial contract expired in June/July of 2010 and they've been doing 3-month extensions since then until the long-term contract was signed in August as you found.
post #2835 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

ABL is standard on both CRT and PDP because it not only keeps peak power in check but also dramatically lengthens lifetime depending on usage. I would be very surprised if OLED does not use some form of limiter (current limiter or something). I've seen a chart from Sony showing the XEL-1 does have an ABL. Without a limiter the XEL-1 would have more than double the peak power consumption (white screen) of an LCD IIRC.

Can you explain why the end result of ABL on a CRT is quite a bit different than that of PDPs? I've noticed that ABL on PDPs is tends to be more aggressive than on CRTs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

OLED is similar to LCD that it is TFT controlled and thus can sample and hold to maximize brightness (CRT and PDP cannot do this). Sony chose to reduce the hold time and introduce flicker to maximize motion resolution AFAIK. Other OLED products in the future may choose to use full hold + interpolation instead.

I recall that the XEL-1 used black frame insertion (BFI) to improve motion resolution. From the time I spent viewing the XEL-1, "flicker" on the the XEL-1 was non-existent compared to a PDP of that model year or a CRT monitor optimized for >60Hz refresh.
post #2836 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb32 View Post

Can you explain why the end result of ABL on a CRT is quite a bit different than that of PDPs? I've noticed that ABL on PDPs is tends to be more aggressive than on CRTs.

Most comparison plots are normalized showing the same or similar average brightness profile. I would speculate that the CRT raw data average brightness is just higher than PDP but I have no data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb32 View Post

I recall that the XEL-1 used black frame insertion (BFI) to improve motion resolution. From the time I spent viewing the XEL-1, "flicker" on the the XEL-1 was non-existent compared to a PDP of that model year or a CRT monitor optimized for >60Hz refresh.

I had the opposite experience comparing my PDP to an XEL-1 side by side.
post #2837 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

The Sony would have been an all-fluorescent OLED display. No relation to the OLED displays being made now with PHOLED red and/or green.

No relation other than the use of blue and/or green fluorescent EL materials LOL.

As for your Universal Display data I would love some detailed info on the measurements taken. The link is not clear if this data model is phophetic or not. OLED industry loves to model data based on lab devices and write PR as if it applies to all future OLED products.

Also, even if this data you keep posting is somehow true for scaled up HT sized displays (I very highly doubt) I still don't find it all that significant. It tells me that a full white screen may still have very high power consumption vs AMLCD without a limiter. And comparing similar sized OLED to a LED-LD-LCD I don't see how OLED could be that much lower power based on this data.

I'm starting to think you may own Universal Display stock JMO but over the last 11 years at my job I've watched Universal and Cambridge display flood the media with OLED PR. It took me a few years to realize the vast majority of it was fluff.

That being said the recent scientific literature is showing UD and PHOLED making some great and exciting progress.

Also realize that I am very much pro OLED but I try to remain realistic and avoid the irrational exuberence a few posters seem to have about OLED, SED....etc
post #2838 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Also, even if this data you keep posting is somehow true for scaled up HT sized displays (I very highly doubt) I still don't find it all that significant.

Why would you doubt it? If OLED is better in power consumption with PHOLED red and green on a small screen why would scaling the screen size matter? The LCD is scaled too to that size too. What makes the comparison invalid?
post #2839 of 9446
The following quote:
Power consumption While an OLED will consume around 40% of the power of an LCD displaying an image which is primarily black, for the majority of images it will consume 60–80% of the power of an LCD: however it can use over three times as much power to display an image with a white background such as a document or website.[70] This can lead to reduced real-world battery life in mobile devices
is from the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...emitting_diode
points out that LCD and OLED display power consumption can not be compared based 0n s9ze since OLED power consumption is also content dependent.
post #2840 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I suggest you try to make your case with more substance than this. "It sucks" because "I know more" than you is a level of argument that I'm disappointed to see on these forums. Condescending jabs are never constructive nor ever earned.

I made my case. TVs with separate electronics were tried a dozen times. They are gone because they suck and consumers hated them. The point of saying "I know more than you" is I actually remember this happening. I don't have to speculate about it like some mindless drone suggesting it could happen.* It can't happen because consumers won't buy it in 2015 any more than they'd buy it in 2005 -- not at all.

Integrated TVs have eliminated non-integrated TVs from the market. There is simply no chance of the latter making a comeback just because they have some new screen technology. You are entitled to believe this will change as much as you are entitled to believe in the tooth fairy. Neither is real.

* This comment is directed at no specific post or individual, just generic pie-in-the-sky comments that parrot material coming out of press releases or "papers" from manufacturers citing technological "advances" no one wants.
post #2841 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

You people are crazy. I never made any massive claim for the power savings of OLED. I said take whatever savings there are and multiply them by the number of displays out there.

You actually made an implied claim that displays based on OLED would save "hundreds of watts" times "one billion". The actual savings is more like single-digit watts times whatever OLEDs displace whatever LCDs would have been sold, but no matter. The saving exist, I am pro savings, savings are good. The advantage of OLED over LCD, however, in the real world is very very small. Sorry.
post #2842 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Do you realise that the base of those LG OLED displays folded up and was what mounted the display to the wall?

Which eliminates any thinness advantage. So why bother.
Quote:


As the kind of person that wants to minimise cable clutter, putting the inputs in the base rather than on the back of the display helps a lot if you aren't putting it on the wall, and it helps make the displays far more stable by moving most of the weight in the base, compared to how unstable most TVs are these days.

And yet, no manufacturer agrees with you.
Quote:


With wireless HDMI, having a separate input box makes wall-mounting a TV considerably easier than it is now. (and OLED's thin profile and low weight helps even more)

Wireless HDMI is terrible, has been promised for 5+ years, and is expected to remain terrible. When it ceases to be terrible, let us know when you figure out wireless 110v and wireless 220v and give us a call since the cabling and connectors for that is much thicker and larger than HDMI. Until then, these points remain irrelevant.
post #2843 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

i would really like to see oled match all the hype, but as someone who has followed display tech for a while, most of the great, newest and best techs
never prove successful for large displays. so some skepticism must remain
especially from those using oled promoting web sites to prove that oled tvs are a given.

then the comments about that sony oled monitor were disturbing. poor off angle viewing and ir. sounds like the worst of lcd and plasma combined.

i would love for oled to attain the predictions and expectations of its proponents, but lets face it, the 2 large display techs currently in use have been around for more than a decade. no new tech has been able to trump either of those for a long time, so banking on owning a large oled display is iffy at best.

You are making too much sense for AVS Forum. I may have to report this post for "logic".
post #2844 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Wireless HDMI is terrible, has been promised for 5+ years, and is expected to remain terrible. When it ceases to be terrible, let us know when you figure out wireless 110v and wireless 220v and give us a call since the cabling and connectors for that is much thicker and larger than HDMI. Until then, these points remain irrelevant.

WHDI boxes have been on the on the market for a while now. Uncompresed 1080p with 1ms latency.

There are displays on the market already that have wireless video built in to make wall-mounting hassle-free.

Haier just unveiled a completely wireless TV last month which uses WHDI for video and is powered wirelessly.


This is the future. In 10-20 years, people will look back and wonder how any of us put up with all the cable clutter between devices.
post #2845 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

The following quote:
Power consumption While an OLED will consume around 40% of the power of an LCD displaying an image which is primarily black, for the majority of images it will consume 60–80% of the power of an LCD: however it can use over three times as much power to display an image with a white background such as a document or website.[70] This can lead to reduced real-world battery life in mobile devices
is from the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic...emitting_diode
points out that LCD and OLED display power consumption can not be compared based 0n s9ze since OLED power consumption is also content dependent.

Phones with OLED screens using at least PHOLED red are already comparing quite favorably in terms of battery consumption with phones with LCD. Considering phones are used for displaying images with white backgrounds far more than any TV ever would it stands to reason that large TVs with OLED vs LCD would compare even more favorably since they show white background images far less.
post #2846 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist; View Post

WHDI boxes have been on the on the market for a while now. Uncompresed 1080p with 1ms latency.

There are displays on the market already that have wireless video built in to make wall-mounting hassle-free.

Haier just unveiled a completely wireless TV last month which uses WHDI for video and is powered wirelessly.


This is the future. In 10-20 years, people will look back and wonder how any of us put up with all the cable clutter between devices.

There was a Build in Wireless thread not that long ago, most people said No or (it has to be $10-$100) Cheaphttp://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1293810. I do not like wireless, to me its a GIRLY 'thing' so i voted NO.
post #2847 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

WHDI boxes have been on the on the market for a while now. Uncompresed 1080p with 1ms latency.

There are displays on the market already that have wireless video built in to make wall-mounting hassle-free.

Haier just unveiled a completely wireless TV last month which uses WHDI for video and is powered wirelessly.


This is the future. In 10–20 years, people will look back and wonder how any of us put up with all the cable clutter between devices.

Have you used one of these WHDI boxes? They suck. And they aren't uncompressed 1080p in most cases. Also, call me when they send power too. It'll be far more amazing to eliminate one source cable when it also eliminates the one power cable. Until then, it's un-mazing. And the degradation in video quality is more un-mazing. I do agree in 10-20 years it might well be common.
post #2848 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

There was a Build in Wireless thread not that long ago, most people said No or (it has to be $10-$100) Cheaphttp://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1293810. I do not like wireless, to me its a GIRLY 'thing' so i voted NO.

It's a "girly" thing to be wireless?

After recently putting up a wall mount bracket (one of the thinnest available, 15mm, which still sticks out too far once the TV is up there) then cutting a channel in a brick wall, putting in trunking, spending a fair bit of money on in-wall rated cabling, a 15m HDMI from my PC to the TV (the skirting board was also replaced with trunking) plastering over it and repainting a wall, I don't particularly care if it's "girly" to have a 3mm thin TV that goes almost flush on the wall with some picture hooks and is powered wirelessly, with all my devices either being wired into a receiver box (which can be up to 60ft away with line-of-sight) or going wireless straight into the TV. Is it also a "girly" thing to look after your personal appearance or keep a tidy home?

Cables are an eyesore, and a real nuisance to deal with if you're trying to hide them away properly.

While they're hidden away successfully, I now have to change one of the cables going to the TV, and I am not looking forward to that job at all.

Right now, wireless HDMI boxes are a bit of an inconvenience because they aren't built into the TV (though there are a few higher-end displays that do have it built in, but nothing mainstream yet) but in a few years, the costs will have come down enough that it will just become a standard feature in all mid-range TVs and up, similar to how only the cheapest LCDs are CCFL backlit anymore, how all laptops now have WiFi built in etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Have you used one of these WHDI boxes? They suck. And they aren't uncompressed 1080p in most cases. Also, call me when they send power too. It'll be far more amazing to eliminate one source cable when it also eliminates the one power cable. Until then, it's un-mazing. And the degradation in video quality is more un-mazing. I do agree in 10-20 years it might well be common.

I have some experience with the ASUS WHDI boxes. I agree that it isn't perfect yet, but it's getting there and clearly shows that it's feasible.

Apple also has wireless display mirroring built into the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S, though I don't have any experience with what that's like. I have heard good things though. With iOS 5 they have just removed the need to ever connect up your device to your PC with a USB cable ever again. In a year or two, I bet they will have eliminated the USB cable for charging the device too. (and it can be done right now with third-party cases)

In the future, just about everything will be wireless, and it's already begun.
post #2849 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Phones with OLED screens using at least PHOLED red are already comparing quite favorably in terms of battery consumption with phones with LCD. Considering phones are used for displaying images with white backgrounds far more than any TV ever would it stands to reason that large TVs with OLED vs LCD would compare even more favorably since they show white background images far less.

If what you said is correct about Samsung's use of PHOLED red, my Samsung Fascinate had it. When the brightness was set to full (which was the only way to see it outside in full daylight), it would chew through my batter in around an hour, and after a lot of experimenting I found that the only way to have a usable battery life was to put the screen on its dimmest mode. My iPhone 4S lasts 5-8x as long in full brightness; the two phones seem to put out a similar amount of light when compared side by side in full bright mode. Based on personal experience, I have yet to be sold on the supposed power-saving benefits of OLED.
post #2850 of 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

If what you said is correct about Samsung's use of PHOLED red, my Samsung Fascinate had it. When the brightness was set to full (which was the only way to see it outside in full daylight), it would chew through my batter in around an hour, and after a lot of experimenting I found that the only way to have a usable battery life was to put the screen on its dimmest mode. My iPhone 4S lasts 5-8x as long in full brightness; the two phones seem to put out a similar amount of light when compared side by side in full bright mode. Based on personal experience, I have yet to be sold on the supposed power-saving benefits of OLED.

http://www.displaymate.com/Smartphone_ShootOut_1.htm

iPhone 4 at 229cd/m2: 0.19 watts
Galaxy S at 229cd/m2: 0.72 watts

iPhone 4 peak brightness (541cd/m2) 0.42 watts
Galaxy S peak brightness (305cd/m2) 1.13 watts

Power consumption is considerably higher in most use-cases with OLED, it only wins out with dark images. This is why Android has a dark interface. (all the reference phones use Pentile AMOLED displays)

Samsung also shifts the white balance as brightness increases, making the image bluer to give the appearance of being brighter than it is.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread