OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 97

i raised the same question about qleds here a while back and got shot down by some stating their toxicity precludes widespread adoption. now we learn oleds have some toxic issues as well, so i'm not sure where we are.

Like I said I believe in display lag, but I don't believe it is the TOTAL delay introduced. As a PC guy, when we debottleneck we do it along the whole chain and find the weakest link instead of focusing on one singular component.

BFI is not backlight scanning. It is obsolete now and were used years ago to reduce LCD hold time.

You are a gamer. There are sites that test your reaction time. You can go verify your reaction time and see what order of magnitude it is to 33ms. As to the oft quoted pilots' test, it is another case of skewed "science". Firstly you can see in a plain screen but can you react fast enough? Secondly I doubt anyone can see if the single flash happens in CoD. That's how the brain works heuristically: it focuses on what we deem important and ignores details. A single flash in a myriad of complex environment is not important to the brain.

Thanks for the quick response! If you don't mind, I have a few follow-up questions.


Hmmm. That actually surprises me a bit. I assumed it would be bare with regard to "pro" features...but I also assumed that it's features would be a superset of commonly available consumer features. So are you saying that the PVM is missing standard picture controls such as Brightness, Contrast and Color and Tint?


So again, no brightness setting? I'll be using the display in a dark environment, so if the picture is too bright and can't be toned down, that's a concern. I use my current LCD with the backlight set pretty close to it's lowest value.


I know OLED is susceptible to burn-in, and I certainly do watch a lot of movies in scope format, but I won't be watching TV on the thing. Only movies at most a few times a week. I figured that kind of usage probably pales in comparison to a professional using the thing 8 hours a day.


I assume this can't be turned-off then? It would be annoying having a screen-saver kick in during a slow, fairly static scene.



Thanks for the heads-up. Based on your responses, I'll have to give some serious thought to whether or not this display addresses my needs.

Thanks!

It has all the basics but not the fancy dark-frame insertion, mosquito noise reduction, etc. You can create a login and download the full manual from the UK Sony site.

One more thing. 24FPS flickers quite a bit. You can always convert 24FPS to 60FPS using an external scaler. 1080p48 isn't officially supported and I haven't tried that yet.

When there are multiple different ways to measure the lag (compare to reference display, measure audio delay, measure time from key press to action being displayed etc) its not that difficult to figure out how much delay is caused by the display.

When the only variable that changes is a picture mode on the display, you know exactly how much delay is introduced, and the cause. Adding 67ms is very noticeably less responsive wih my current screen.


This is not about your reaction times. It is about the display reacting to your inputs.

When there is more than about 33ms, there is a noticeable disconnect between moving my arm (to control the mouse) and my view changing in-game. (or the mouse cursor moving) It starts to feel like I'm dragging my view around, rather than controlling my view directly with the mouse.

It's not about how quickly I can react to what the screen is showing me (though if you are up against someone else, you want to remove as many disadvantages as possible) it's primarily about removing the disconnect between my actions in the real world showing up on the screen.

I would prefer lower if I could get it, but the only option other than gaming LCD monitors (which are small and low quality) are Plasmas (Panasonic have had some with a 16ms delay) which are not really suitable for long periods of gaming, and give me headaches from the flickering, or broadcast monitors (particularly the new OLED ones from Sony) which are also small, and way out of my budget.

I'm hoping that the new HMZ-T1 will be 16ms or lower as it is also OLED, but it is a consumer device, rather than broadcast, so it's probably less of a priority.


John Carmack has recently been testing head mounted displays and head tracking, and concluded that 60fps tracking (16ms) isn't enough, and that for him, 120 fps (8ms) was necessary.

^^ I've said what logic and sense tells me that 33ms cannot be noticeable. If it is noticeable (which I agree based on user feedback) then the TOTAL lag must be much longer. So I'll just leave this together with other issues like whether CD is right to cut off at 20kHz

On other developments, this just out from Nokia:
"The Lumia 800 features an outer design that's much shared with the MeeGo-based N9. Instead of the 3.9-inch on the N9, the Lumia 800 has to make room for Windows Phone buttons, so instead there's a 3.7-inch AMOLED ClearBlack curved display. It also packs a 1.4 GHz Qualcomm processor with hardware acceleration and graphics. The 8 MP Carl Zeiss optics with dual LED flash is activated with a dedicated camera button – something that the N9 doesn't have. It however, gives up a front-facing camera from the N9 in exchange for a status LED. It has 16GB of internal user memory and 25GB of free SkyDrive storage for storing images and music. For memory, the Lumia 800 has 512MB, down from the 1GB in the N9. The estimated retail price for the Nokia Lumia 800 will be approximately 420 EUR ($480), excluding taxes and subsidies – also down from the 600 EUR ($830) N9. Pick from cyan, magenta and black."

The display is not curved. The glass that wraps around the phone is slightly curved. Period.

Why PHOLEDs are far better in power efficiency than fluorescent OLEDs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospho...emitting_diode


If anyone has access, this IEEE article directly covers what we're discussing:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203


So, absent any direct comparisons of 2011 OLED displays that use only PHOLED red vs those that will be using both red and green PHOLED it stands to reason that we should expect the types of savings Universal Display's website suggests, all other things being equal.

Looks to be gaining even more momentum, though the caveat below is that Sammy sells many more models than Apple.

"Sammy overtook Apple in 3Q to become the world's largest smart
phone seller. Sammy shipped 27.8mn units in 3Q, taking 23.8%
of the market. vs. 3.7% M/S in 2009
#1 Sammy sold 27.8mn units, 23.8% M/S
#2 Apple 17.1mn 14.6% M/S
#3 Nokia 16.8mn 14.0% M/S
Sammy's telecommunication div posted the largest ever earnings
mainly due to Galaxy S2 sales
REV 14.9wtn (+22% QoQ, +37% YoY)
OP 2.52wtn (1st time to reach W2tn lvl)
OPM 16.9% (beats Semicon div OPM of 16.8% for the 1st time)"

They didnt give much info on future OLED plans on the English call but one thing is for sure, mobile OLED's are very profitable right now. It is the only thing saving SMD. They didnt give any details, but they made it pretty clear that they plan on being less reliant on LCD's going forward as they transition from smartphones to tablets to televisions.

Also interesting to hear that they will sell flexible displays in handsets next year.

Slacker

"....the dismal launch of 4S"

The most successful phone launch ever, you must be referring to. 4 million in less than 1 week.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...first-weekend/

That's compared to 10 million Galaxy S II phones in 5 months.

http://www.electronista.com/articles....s.10m.record/

The Samsung "kitchen sink" approach combined with a later launch that expected certainly did propel Samsung past Apple in Q3. You want to make that bet again for Q4?

Lest we forget we were expecting iPhone 5. Versus the expectation it was dismal.

I'll give the new Apple team the benefit of doubt but I would say Galaxy S would be gaining market share (not top selling) in 4Q as well. Like I said the caveat is that it refers to multiple Samsung models.

I have ordered it but I think most of the information has been updated in recent Universal Display papers 2010-2011 from SID which I already have.

Here is a chart from a 2010 paper from Universal Display with projections on future PHOLED displays vs future LCD displays.

Yeah, but the guy who led that study is a Hack.

Where did you learn that? That would be news to me, and GE as well. who made this video on OLED white lighting.

http://www.efactormedia.com/archive/ge_oled/index.html

Only in Apple land is the greatest smart phone launch in history dismal. People wanted a radically new model on the internet; in the real world this is the fastest selling phone ever. Period.

Samsung has a lot of models so they will probably outship Apple even in Q4. It does appear Apple cares a bit and is slowly expanding its portfolio, but I imagine any significant regaining of marketshare will take time.

Man, I'm a sucker for bad reporting... While I still believe Samsung outsold Apple in Q3, it's very much worth reading this:

http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/10/2...phone-numbers/

Q4 will be much closer -- in reality, not fake shipment numbers -- than this fake 10 million unit advantage would have you believe.

Entire 32" TVs will use under 15w just 2 years from now? That's quite frankly amazing.

If you take 4 of those displays and slam them together, it would seem you get the following power consumption for a 65" display in 2016:

LCD -- 22w (4 x 4 for display + 6 for electronics)
OLED -- 10w (4 x 2 for display + 2 for electronics)

Part of me finds these forecasts entirely unbelievable, which is different from me saying "no way in hell". If this is remotely true, it should end the debate as to whether OLED is going to be able to sold on power consumption: There isn't any chance of that. While people like me will look to find 10w here or there, that's beneath the noise threshold from a cost perspective, a reasonable "greening" of one's house perspective, etc.

A 12-watt difference is less than what you'd save by replacing a single incandescent bulb of 40w or above with any other bulb technology, quite likely including improved halogens. Since the average TV is not going to be 65" or replaced anytime soon, even if we multiple this by "a billion", we'd save about 6 billion watts x 2500 hours or 15 trillion watt/hours or in more commonly used terms or 15 million megawatt / hours.

In 2008, the world consumed about 17 billion megawatt/hours. The amount that replacing every TV in the world with an OLED TV would save vs. using an LCD TV would cut that consumption by less than 1/1000th! (Hint: We should focus on the light bulbs.) Because building TVs is energy intensive, focusing on replacing TVs is a bad idea anyway. There are other replacement items where the cost to build them is covered int the first year or two of operations (e.g. solar panels). TVs that are using 500w are probably worthy of being replaced for energy reasons alone. TVs using <100w? Not so much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 15 trillion watt/hours equal 15 million megawatt hours, or 15 terawatt hours? I follow your math that this would be 1/8760th of the world's energy consumption (i.e. one hour worth), just wondering about the conversion from w/h to mw/h.

New CPU & GPU outperforming the 4 considerably. (twice the CPU power, 8x the GPU power, fastest phone on the market by a huge margin)
New camera with higher pixel count, lower noise, and considerably improved optics.
New dual antenna design. (avoids potential signal problems of 4, now a "world phone")
New operating system.
New "assistant" feature.
Larger battery.

Aside from the external appearance, which is still the best industrial design out there by some margin, it is a completely new phone.

The only people that seem to be disappointed was anyone that wanted a low resolution device that isn't pocketable or able to be operated with one hand.


It's really exciting just how efficient products are getting these days now that companies are really pushing for it.

I have two Sony LCDs here, both 2010 models, one is the highest-end HX900 and the other is a lower end model. Both are the same size, and the local-dimmed HX900, which puts out a much better picture uses about 1/3 to 1/4 the power of the lower-end CCFL backlit screen.

We're just about to try switching to LED lighting, and while I'm yet to be convinced about the quality of light from those bulbs, the power savings are massive, going from about 200W in one fixture to 20W. Due to rising costs and the amount of use this particular fixture sees, the bulbs should pay for themselves in two years.

Hopefully OLED lighting will be available in a few years at lower prices with improved light quality and higher efficiency.

Oh lord, did I cheat again. I divided the 15 trillion hours by a million to get 15 million and then just discarded the million... [ /wristslap] Let me go fix that.

Luckily, OLED used for white lighting will be doing that as well (has already begun - see GE video I posted a few posts back or the commerical offerings of Konica, Minolta, Philips, Novaled, etc).

Most of the tests (like the one from CNET below) show the S2 to be faster (and don't forget the USA T-Mobile S2 is a 1.5Ghz CPU, not 1.2Ghz like the international one). And we already know it's far faster on the cell network, being a 4G phone.


CNET - Samsung Galaxy S2 vs iPhone 4S:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXhjAgRDhT8

OLED lighting, in any meaningful quantity, is a long long way off. It is awesome that big name companies are working on commercializing lighting but it is only going to be applicable to niche areas for quite a while.

Slacker

As I've stated, LED lighting will absolutely obliterate OLED lighting in the marketplace for at least the balance of this decade, probably longer. The niche applications for OLED lighting will cover the small fraction of the market it will capture and that's about it.

The end result is the same - i.e. best case scenario, miniscule power savings. Just wanted to make sure I was doing my conversions correctly.

That video is an iPhone 4 compared to the HTC Evo 4G, not the new iPhone 4S.

Despite the 800MHz clockspeed, the iPhone 4S still beats the 1.5GHz Galaxy SII in tests.

Yeah, looks like the video was mislabeled. And I didn't notice they only showed iPhone 4 in the summary at the end.

This is terrifying and I have some calls in to Lucifer asking about ice forming in Hades but: I agree with all of this. That said, I did play with a Galaxy and unless you hold it jammed into your thumb/forefinger joint, you can operate it with one hand for many many things with "average sized" hands. Most importantly, though, you, me, and the marketplace seem to agree. Tech fanboys and some analysts are the only people on the other side of the fence.

I follow the green blogs fairly closely. I haven't seen one iota of evidence that OLED lighting is going to be used in the next 5 years as drop-in replacements for the billions of light bulbs in use. LED on the other hand is. If you are patient and wait for the new Switch Lighting bulbs and compare those to the Philips, I think you'll find nice options. The light quality from what I've seen looks pretty good.

OLED lighting isn't destined for the light bulb replacement market. The first mass markets will depend on new installations, such as new office buildings choosing OLED ceiling tiles rather than fluorescent tube lighting. I could also see somebody choosing to use OLED's rather than downlighting when finishing a basement. The diffuse lightwould help eliminate dark areas. Of course everything depends on eventually commercializing roll to roll manufacturing so they can bring down the costs.


Slacker

Right, that makes perfect sense. This means as a practical matter it would be limited to single-digit percentages of the new office-building lighting market for the foreseeable future. This makes bullish forecasts associated with OLED lighting completely bizarre.


If and when it's reasonably affordable.


Which, of course, hasn't happened yet.