OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 156

I actually see Vizio being the biggest threat to Sharp. A couple of places was selling the new 70" Vizio (very well reviewed) for under $1500. It's not 3D but many don't really care, especially for that price.

I am not 100% sure, but I think those new Vizios are using Sharp's older UV2 panel in their new 60" and 70" sets. So Sharp is getting paid either way.

(Wow this thread brings out the old-school!)

Ken,

I agree.

I recently saw the Sony 4K displaying the Sony 4K source content at a Sony store. I felt the same way you do.

I currently use a JVC RS55 projector which employs a mechanical/optical process to wrangle 4K pixels on to the screen. However, it can not currently accept 4K source input, so the benefit is mostly a total lack of pixel structure (you can put your nose to the screen and find it hard to see any), allowing for very large image sizes without pixelation. It also allows for some neat upscaling as well (definitely a more impressive image in terms of clarity and detail than I got from my previous 1080p JVC model).

But, anyway, being into big images I've been intrigued by 4K. And it's not ONLY because I use a projection set up. I have found myself very aware of the limitations of 1080p content in terms of resolution for many years, whether it be on flat panels or whatever. It's just obvious that 1080p can't resolve the finest details (or furthest away objects). Given the quadrupling of resolution for 4K I'd hoped I'd immediately see the benefit in terms of a step forward in realism (I wasn't expecting a huge obvious leap, but a very distinct step in the direction I'm speaking about).

What I saw on the Sony 4K left me less impressed than I expected. At least on this display/this set up, like you said, from an "average" viewing distance (I'd guess about 7 to 10 feet) there was nothing that stuck out particularly from the rest of the 1080p displays in this or any other store. It looked like..well...really good HD. It was only being aware of what 4K ought to bring to the table, and looking for the finest details, as well as moving closer, that I could start to spot the 4K difference. Yes, in those wide shots of cities, towns, beaches etc smaller details and far away objects remained resolved in a way you don't get with 1080p. So that in itself was very cool. But in just casual viewing it wasn't contributing to a particularly new "wow" experience. Again...it felt a lot like a really good HD image but not some paradigm shift.

I also watched customer reactions and it was the same as you report. Most glanced, passed by. Some stopped, uttered that it looked nice. No one seemed to notice it's "4Kness" and several customers had to read the big sony 4K advert sign and material before they understood they were supposed to be seeing anything better on that display vs the other 1080p displays.

One HUGE caveat as always is the fact this was a store demo. You'd think it WOULD have been set up as carefully as possible by Sony technicians. But we know by now just how low the standards for a proper display seem to plummet in almost any store, no matter how high-end it purports to be. So I'm certain that what I saw is mostly a hint at what 4K can bring to the table when properly presented. (At least...I hope). When I got home my "4K-lite" projector with a 1080p source actually had more "wow" factor in terms of apparent sharpness and detail, which is why I'm sure the Sony set up wasn't optimal.

But it does leave me feeling that 4K is going to be a tougher sell to consumers than HD was. I was going to say even harder than 3D, but then some sizable portion of consumers actively hate 3D...

More like Sharp's salvation. They are pushing the utilization in Sakai up.

Yep.

I suspect it will be a tough sell. Not as tough a sell as OLED, however. People are getting used to "retina displays" on their phones, tablets and laptops.

Wellll, finally saw my first (AM)OLED "in the flesh" and whilst it is only a 4.8" screen (on the Samsung Galaxy S3), I am pretty enamored with it. However, even this display shows residual lighting/bleeding in dark areas with high contrast content. I also noticed very minutely the "black spot" phenomenon in a few locations on the screen. Totally engrossing viewing experience otherwise (well, as engrossing as a <5" screen can be).

"Scientists develop indium-free organic light-emitting diodes"

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-scientists-indium-free-light-emitting-diodes.html

"The metal-oxide, indium tin oxide (ITO), is a transparent conductor used as the anode for flat screen displays, and has been the standard for decades. Due to indium's limited supply, increasing cost and the increasing demand for its use in screen and lighting technologies, the U.S. Department of Energy has designated indium as "near-critical" in its assessment of materials vital to clean energy technology. Scientists have been working to find an energy efficient, cost effective substitute. "There are not many materials that are both transparent and electrically conductive," said Joseph Shinar, an Ames Laboratory Senior Scientist. "One hundred percent of commercial display devices in the world use ITO as the transparent conducting electrode. There's been a big push for many years to find alternatives." "Everybody is trying to find a replacement for ITO, many working with zinc oxide, another metal oxide. But here we are working towards something different, developing ways to use a conducting polymer," said Min Cai, a post-doctoral research scientist in the Ames Laboratory and the Dept. of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University......

There are many people downplaying OLED in favor of cheap giant displays. I have the opposite view.

I'd rather have a 24" OLED monitor for my computer than any other technology and I'd be willing to pay a premium for it, the same way I bought an IPS monitor over a TN.

Second, I'd rather have a 50" OLED TV over any larger size LCD. It is more than large enough and it would be better in all the ways we know.

Here's an allegory or metaphor. Plenty of consumers buy SSD drives that are far smaller than conventional spinning HDDs for the same price because they out-perform. I think it is reasonable to expect the same with OLED.

Well...I'd definitely tale a large panel OLED (or a Crystal LED) over a large panel LCD any day. Controlling individual pixels is the way to go for many reasons.

But for some of us the size of a panel is a factor that can weigh in our decision of what panel to buy. Ultimately there is no right or wrong when it comes to individual preference.

Aside from the fact that I'm sure you mean analogy, not allegory.... the parallel here is a poor one on at least two dimensions I can see:

(1) A 50" TV would in no way satisfy most of us. That's why the SSD analogy doesn't apply. Those of us with SSD-based computers (and I have two, by the way), accept them because the SSD has enough space. If the SSD was 16GB, we would not bother. It was only when it reached 64GB that -- for me -- it was adequate. Now, I probably wouldn't consider less than 128GB for a new machine.

Yes, some people have different base requirements. And certainly 55" OLEDs will satisfy some discerning TV viewers. But the idea that a high-priced product can get away with being insufficient to satisfy the demand of the very buyers it needs to attract because it's better is not correct. That said, I believe 55" is an adequate starting size, even if the majority of AVS enthusiasts will be uninterested at that size.

Also, the premium -- assuming the pricing is indeed $8K -- is not IPS vs. TN. It's more like Mercedes vs. Toyota.

(2) This claim of "better in all the ways we know" is fascinating. I agree people use it to justify the purchase of expensive (overpriced?) goods all the time. But I wonder if people are confused about how good OLED will really be.

It will not have the lifetime of LCD and won't be free of its burn-in risk. It quite possibly won't get as bright either. It will be lower resolution than the best LCDs too.

It will be contrastier, although in many environments not discernibly so. It will be thinner, sexier, etc.

Look, that may not matter. The BMW M3 doesn't haul your kids to soccer as well as a GMC Arcadia, either.

But we are talking very, very marginal picture quality improvements here. And astronomically higher prices for a display that will not be very large and by a dimension people do understand other than size -- resolution -- won't even be state of the art.

The selling of OLED is going to be very, very tough indeed.

That pretty much sums it up.

I am going to assume 4K TVs will be the norm for 50"+ sizes in three years (not sure sure if thats a realistic assumption or not). Anyway, as I've posted, my next TV has to be min 80" (preferably 90"). Why would I ever more 1.5x more for OLED over LCD for marginal improvements? Let's say I have the following options in 3-4 years:
80" 4K LCD $5,000
90" 4K LCD $8,000
55" 4K OLED $4,000
80" 4K OLED $7,500
90" 4K OLED $12,000

I would say given how I feel right now, I'd get the 80" LCD, and if I had a few thousand more bucks in my pocket, I would probably also take the 90" LCD over the 80" OLED.

I'm a wack job but I'm inclined to agree with xoham to a point. If I can get a set with black levels that are absolute, I will be glad to take a 55" upgrade over my 50" plasma (I'm happy to sit at 7 feet out as well). I've seen how immersive black levels make the viewing experience, and it's something I crave more than a size upgrade (though cost is very much an issue).

Can we assume along with extreme increases in resolution other radical advancements in LCD tech will be brought with it? IGZO backplanes and blue phase mode should make the existing dominate panel tech more desirable to videophiles.

Exactly right, While LG is still trying to figure out how to get 55" OLED yields above 40%, LCD tech continues to make great advances. 4K resolution, IGZO panels, MothEye anti-glare screens that improve contrast, Blue Phase, ICC reality engines etc. Check out Sharp's new IGZO/MothEye XL9 series that just came out in Japan. Those might not be OLED black levels, but the price and size more than makes up for it for most buyers.

I agree with all the skeptical posts above, especially those that correctly note LCD tech is not standing still.

But on the "exciting OLED news" side, LG's OLED is at FCC, requesting certification. So it's one step closer to real for the U.S.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/07/lgs-first-55-inch-oled-hdtv-pops-up-in-the-fccs-database/

Agreed that LCDs keep making strides.

Unfortunately they seem unable so far to make a truly significant move forward in the area that probably bothers me most: Viewing angles.
Year after year I see manufacturers tout better viewing angles for LCD, and even see the occasional reviewer praising LCD viewing angles.

Yet every time I see the latest LCD models it's the same story: image altering, washing out unless I'm in the sweet spot. I can't stand that attribute of LCD and it keeps it from being a premium or reference technology, for me at lest.
If OLED improves on this problem that's a very good thing.

(I understand much of the population at large is not as bothered by LCD's shortcomings in this area).

Well, I bought what I imagine is my last-ever plasma for the viewing-angle reason more than anything. But I wonder if this, too, won't be getting better in LCD. First of all, it's better in IPS panels. Second of all, IGZO promises better aperture ratios for LCD, which ought to help.

That said, I am entirely in agreement with you.

Well I just saw a 70" LCD at a big box warehouse store for less than $1,900. And I must say, the viewing angles were more than good enough.

Full story at this link . Not sure if this involves their 55" panels or not.

Samsung Display likely to resume OLED capex soon

OLED 5.5G expansion likely for A2 not A3
Hopes have grown for OLED capacity expansion to resume since the official
launch of Samsung Display (SD) on Jul 1, there is some uncertainty regarding this
plan. We recently visited equipment makers in SD’s supply chain to confirm if 5.5G
OLED capex will resume soon. We found some changes to the plan compared to
earlier expectations. Specifically, we now expect capacity to increase at the A2 fab
(tentatively named A2E) rather than the A3 facility. But, we do not believe there will
be any significant capacity changes regardless of the line. However, 8G capex is
likely to be delayed as the A2E space was originally designed for 8G lines.

We expect the new 5.5G lines to adopt flexible and laser induced thermal imaging
(LITI) process technologies used at the A2P3 line. We believe this is likely as the
thin-film process is close to resolving technological difficulties that have prevented
flexible displays and delayed 5.5G OLED capex. We believe LITI-based highresolution
displays and flexible technologies are essential to reinforce the
differentiation strategy at Samsung Electronics (SEC)’s smartphone business and
to ensure SD’s OLED competitiveness.

Additional 5.5G and 8G OLED lines to built at A3 facility.
We expect the A3 facility, designed for only 5.5G capacity, will house both
additional 5.5G OLED expansion and 8G lines going forward, as 5.5G capex will
take place at the A2 fab in 2H12. As such, there are concerns over 8G OLED
capex delays as mass production lines will likely be built at the A3 facility. But, we
still expect shares of OLED equipment players taking part in the expansion to rally
from 1H13 as mass production should begin from 2014.

OLED expansion likely on small- and mid-sized panel demand in 2013
We maintain our view that 5.5G OLED equipment will be ordered in 3Q12 as
additional OLED capacity is required to ramp up in 1H13 as SEC’s smartphone
sales will outpace existing SD’s 5.5G OLED capacity. Stripping out SEC, smalland
mid-sized panel sales account for around 40% of SD’s total capacity, but this
should fall sharply, slipping below 30% from 2Q13. As such, we expect 5.5G capex
from 2H12.

OLED equipment shares to rally as orders resume, SFA Eng top pick
We expect OLED equipment shares to rally as SD resumes orders from 3Q12.
Shares are trading at an average 8-9x 2012 PE on concerns over capex delays.
Despite these worries, we maintain a positive view as the capex cycle should
extend from 5.5G to 8G. Specifically, we maintain SFA Engineering (SFA) as our
top pick, with a BUY rating and W80,000 TP given the company’s experience in
supply OLED equipment to SD. Of note, SFA currently trades at 8.8x 2012 PE.

You can read between the lines between easily there:

The 5.5G line is being fully utilized for smartphones alone. They need more production there. They are building it. "We maintain our view that 5.5G OLED equipment will be ordered in 3Q12 as additional OLED capacity is required to ramp up in 1H13 as SEC’s smartphone sales will outpace existing SD’s 5.5G OLED capacity."

The idea they were ever going to mass-produce TVs on the 5.5G line was pretty ridiculous. I think Specuvestor once explained they could get going on the 5.5G line (and I'm sure that was true). It appears this report, however, confirms that all of the TV production is being done on the 8G pilot line because (a) the 5.5G line is not available and (b) the only way to scale TV production is the 8G line.

If/when they get the 8G line going at 24K substrates per month, they will have the capacity to build 150K panels per yield, figuring on a yield of ~50%, that's about 1 million units run rate by year end 2013. Sounds about right as a goal. It's worth noting that there seems to be absolutely no way to accelerate this timetable from here which suggests that Samsung has no interest in doing so, no capability to do so (i.e. they can't make the TVs faster no matter what) and no real need to do so.

The long and short of it is that OLED TVs will be looking to capture north of 1% of the total market in 2014, not 2013.

How about CLED?

If anyone ever builds such a thing, it will be an even tougher sell, unless it is priced very aggressively, which is to be determined.

I doubt there is much to worry about with regard to that technology before 2014-15. And it's quite possible we'll never have to worry about it.

OLED, at least, is coming to televisions.

"According to DisplaySearch, it will take another four years for OLED screens to capture less than a tenth of the global TV screen market."

[ smug]

As some of us have been saying for quite a long time...

Oh, and it's 12/11/12... Anyone take delivery of a 2012 OLED yet?

[ /smug]

Back in May LG had a "sort of confidential" admittance to having a 2013 4K 55" "W"OLED ("White OLED") available for (interviewee guess of) $10,000 USD.

The 55EM9600.

LG's claiming that White OLED produces higher panel yields.

http://asia.cnet.com/lg-to-launch-4k-oled-tv-in-2013-62215629.htm

I know I'm throwing myself to the wolves in this skeptics-pit, but eh. I've got Ibuprofen.
Edited by tgm1024 - 12/11/12 at 2:10pm

I don't understand. Light bleeding from *where* exactly? There's nothing transmissive. This is an emissive technology.

Emissive displays still need to block the light from adjacent pixels to show dark areas.

Wrong thread.

Ah, ok.


?

I'm positive that White OLED (or more accurately RGBW) will have higher yields -- at least in the short run. That said, LG has delivered exactly as many units as Samsung this year.

As for the future and 4K, I've already stated I believe it was a mistake to sell 2K OLED at all. The magnitude of that mistake will be even more apparent next year when 4K LCD becomes even more available and makes shiny, new OLED seem obsolete before it ships. The Reuters article linked above already damns OLED by saying LCD can be four times as good. They mean resolution.

The article you linked, however, references the 2K OLED as being the $10,000 product and the 4K product separately. One could hope that changes, but there isn't much evidence to back that up.

And it seems like LG will have to get its IGZO going to make 4K work. Currently, it has no IGZO production to speak of.

I saw residual lighting, that's all I know. And the explanation given already seems to be suitable enough as to the reason why.