OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 166

Thanks for your optimism, Rich.

"...In fact OLED is facing direct existential threat right now. The only segment where OLED is commercialized of sort
is mobile. Now, everybody will tell that the difference between recent mobile LCDs and OLEDs is slight and with
technologies like AH-IPS and IGZO the LCD will keep up at least. But in addition mobile LCD is now changing from 720
to full 1080 which will become norm in 2013. Making 1080 mobile OLED is a huge step since the pixel number is doubled
and thus OLED may loose the game.
Edited by irkuck - 12/29/12 at 6:18am

Italics mine.

OLED future is this battle: Chinese are moving into the LCD area with tremendous force, Samsung and LG want to save themselves by pumping billions and billions into OLED. They have very deep pockets and may have chances to win in this game but it is not guaranteed. If Samsung indeed releases Galaxy S4 with 1080 OLED it will mean it is just able to keep with the LCD in resolution but this will be very costly. If LG is able to release the 70" OLED it will mean it is able to just keep with the LCD in size but cost is still an issue.

Italics might be yours, but I'm going to just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that either (a) English isn't your first language or (b) you are not reading carefully.

Irkuck's post doesn't predict the demise of OLED.

"Direct existential threat" means that something could take it out. Could and will are not the same word. A prediction of demise contains the word "will".

As for your italics, again note the word "may" instead of the word "will".

Irkuck is saying that even with the billions invested to date and the success in Samsung's mobile display division, the future is very uncertain.

That's not a prediction of demise.

Same for me.

That stuff looks promising, although only the thinner version (the 0.5mm) compares favorably with Gorilla Glass in terms of thickness.

It is good to know that people are looking at this problem because -- and this should be obvious, but most people here who think roll-up screens are coming to their smartphone have problem have missed it -- no smartphone is shipping without some kind of layer between you, me and the display. Gorilla Glass is good, but obviously can still shatter and while it tends to protect the underlying screen, we've probably all seen situations where it doesn't. An unbreakable screen and an unbreakable front (of plastic) that is similarly hard to scratch like GG, would be a really appealing smartphone combo (tablets too).

Rogo:

We're not lawyers, and you are not Samuel Johnson.

It is clear that Irkuck is pessimistic, which was the thrust of my comment.

Please do not engage in ad hominem attacks to make your points. Your comment about English not being my first language is deliberately provocative and insulting.
Edited by taichi4 - 1/23/13 at 3:06pm

Perceived cost in the buyers mind will be an even larger issue if the 70" sets aren't 4k.

Well, the tone taken toward the viability of OLED is certainly different. There were many things that at least conversationally sounded to me as arguments that OLED might never take off (largely because of the difficulty in chasing 4K and LCD advancements including IGZO). Everything was always understood as an unknown of course, but to someone not plugged into the industry (like me), it does seem like OLED is further along than many expected it would be in January 2013.

correct, and its window of opportunity is closing rather rapidly.

if you can't buy an affordable 2nd gen oled set from bb or amazon by 12/14, i believe that window will be irreparably closed.

Why 12/14 deadline? Is it due to Chinese will mass produce LCD that no one can cost compete?
Or we will be out of electricity or etc global issues?
Would you mind explain in plain English to way out of industry person? Pls.

Actually, that couldn't be farther removed from the truth. You claimed people predicted the "demise" of the technology, which means "death". It has no other common meanings. Then you quoted a post about "facing a threat" as a death prediction. Those aren't the same thing. If I predict the 49ers will win the Superbowl, I'm necessarily predicting the Ravens will lose. If I predict the Ravens defense will give Kaepernick a tough time, I'm making no particular statement about the outcome. They simply aren't the same and, honestly, we have a lot of non-native English speakers here. It's an easy to make mistake when one isn't especially familiar with the language.

Apparently, you are a native English speaker, but you're also clearly not playing remotely fair here. I asked for a specific thing and instead of responding directly, you decided to just quote irkuck to make a different (albeit related) point. I'm not sure that proves anything.

Incidentally, you also don't seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. Asking whether you speak English natively or questioning whether you read carefully don't apply. An ad hominem attack that fell into either of those categories would read, "you're a dumb foreigner" or "you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying". I did neither and would not do either under any circumstances as the first of those is just plain unacceptable in civil discourse and the second clearly doesn't apply to you.

So let's just agree that (1) I didn't seek to offend you, so I'm sorry about that (2) You have not quoted anyone who predicted the failure of OLED.

Many of us are pessimistic about its prospects for world domination, but that's another matter entirely.

Actually, it's the opposite. After CES 2012, many of us believed that OLED was inevitable and would begin its quest toward world domination. This after years of broken promises. In the ensuing year, it has returned to breaking promises and LCD has continued to advance. The problems with OLED 3 years ago weren't IGZO and 4K, they were economies of scale and sufficient performance improvements to justify caring. Today, it's those and IGZO and 4K.

So, no, tgm, OLED is not further along than many expected in 2013. It's less far along than we all hope even as recently as the middle of 2012. It appears distinctly possible that only LG will ship a TV this year and that it will ship fewer than 100,000 units worldwide.

That might be true in TVs, it's hard to say. Sony, Panasonic, AUO, Samsung and countless other dreamers are hoping to go past LCD with something they can call new and somewhat unique. Will anyone care? Hard to know. Will people pay a premium for it? Well, we know the answer is: Not much of one. The muddled marketing of selling 3-D, 4K, Smart TV, and OLED when people are shifting viewing to tablets is already challenging enough. But these guys are hardheaded and won't quit easily.

I don't expect such a product by 12/14. I believe we might see such a thing by 12/15, however. Two price cuts from here gets things below $5000, i.e. <2x the price of a premium LCD of similar size. At that price, people might at least look at the OLED.

I would love for OLED to have taken off but at this stage I just don't see it without a major technological breakthrough on the manufacturing side of it.

No no no, I should have been more clear: I'm claiming that recently much of the mood seems to have changed here. In the last month or less.

Follow the money. If they're investing a bil or more, they must know something. You don't get that kind of budget without being VERY convincing. They aren't showing all their cards.

I'm not in display panel industry either, I just read a lot and like to make some somewhat educated guesses.

Yes it's based on the assumption that there will be a lot of large, 4k, inexpensive and possibly igzo panels coming out of china in 2 years, as well significant improvements in the quality of lcd/led panels coming out of Korea, Taiwan, and possibly Japan if sharp makes it.

If you can get 80 - 110" 4k, igzo led panel for $2500-3000 by the end of 2014, and oled only offers signifcantly smaller panels at 2-3 times that price, I think the panel manufacturers will abandon it for the next hoped for great tech breakthrough.

And Rogo, yes I'm talking about television displays only, and by affordable, I'm talking, using today's prices, Sony hx 900 and sharp elite series local dimming arrays price points for oled in 2 years.

As far as I see it now OLED is survival game. LCD, even at 4K, is becoming commodity dominated by Chinese prices and zeal. Other manufacturers to survive must go into something much more sophisticated. Samsung and LG have very deep pockets to pump gazillions into OLED due to the structure of their conglomerates and hidden subsidies. In the end they may prevail but on pure economic grounds the technology would never pick up. But there will be another level in such considerations if Chinese show their own full range of OLEDs at next-year CES . Then again, with their prices and zeal OLED may still win .
Edited by irkuck - 1/23/13 at 11:45pm

Then you're doing it wrong.
The fact is, when you point a camera at an LCD, CRT or plasma display the quality of the resulting display in the picture is generally pretty poor.
It only takes some common sense to realise, over the years - all the photos you've ever seen of a display, the LCD doesn't look that good to a photo. The OLED looks distinctively different.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oled&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=518&sei=uQsBUfe2AdHMkgXM_YCwDw&tbm=isch#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=oled+television&oq=oled+television&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l9.8460.9565.3.9820.10.9.0.0.0.0.245.1021.3j3j2.8.0...0.0...1c.1.D1GmYyEVZEA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dGI&fp=d0ffd0c9c7cda515&biw=1280&bih=518
When a photo of an OLED is taken you can still quite easily tell that the picture is vastly superior.
Most of those photos of OLED displays look like the old days of photoshopped product pictures, where they have to put a pretend image on the display because taking a photo wouldn't work - not so here.

Furthermore, when you do your reading (which I finally did this last week) and understand the opinion of the TV reviewers, how the technology works and just how good the blacks are, you realise this is a seriously, seriously good technology. The 'cons' sections in most OLED articles are pretty thin for anything bad.

As someone who would never ever consider owning an LCD and will only use plasma, the fact OLED will render both null and void in quality, completely excites me. It's a fantastic technology

So you are one of those who are queuing up to hook one of those $12K 55" OLEDs ?

Samsung trying to dispel FUD about OLED Exceeding 300 Million OLED Panel Production Mark... from 2007

I'm currently on an 80U, 2008 50" Panasonic (720p) I'm planning on moving it to craigslist in the next 6 months and getting in a 64 or 65" Plasma to last 4 years.
In that time, I'm hoping in 4 years, a 70" OLED will be under $3500
That's the plan at this point - one more plasma for me and then OLED hopefully.

As for OLEDs success, there's always the rich and the videophiles, people will NOT put up with the poor quality of LCD, furthermore - unlike plasma where people can try to argue, I think OLED is CLEARLY going to be visible in how it's superior, from low latencies, clearly better blacks, thinner and lighter cabinets and theoretically lower power, it's got ALL the bulletpoints needed to defeat LCD and appease the early adopters.

There have been many excellent pictures taken from displays of varying techs with careful camera work. Browse some of the AVS threads and you'll find them. With that said, these pictures are more for 'fun' than to make an absolute assessment of display quality. However to compare two different displays in the same frame, when the light output and settings of each display are different, is difficult to impossible. Each display will require a different, ideal exposure.

My point was that there are many reasons why assessing differences in display quality from the typical, poorly shot YouTube video is foolish. Who would buy a display in this manner or come to definitive conclusions about the merits of one tech vs another.

Further, I never said that the OLED tech was not excellent, it is. But here again, you missed my point. When black levels in the best of the current displays (plasma & LED/LCD) is already so good, it's tough to measure, how much of an improvement do you expect to see in this area? Improvements will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

If we already have displays that are very close to perfect in conforming to Rec709, how much of an improvement do you expect to see in this area? If the claim is that OLED color saturation is X% better than conventional displays and is capable of displaying Y% 'more hues' than other techs, I will contend this does nothing to improving color accuracy as far as our accepted standard is concerned. In fact it might look great, but it might be less accurate. Of course there's no reason to believe that an OLED can't be calibrated to be accurate and conforming to Rec709, but then it will probably look very much the same as another, accurately calibrated display tech.

'Eye popping' and accurate can be two very different things. We shall see.

That's where we strongly disagree. To say that the best LED/LCDs are of 'poor' quality, is just a very naive statement.

I owned nothing but plasmas, including two Kuros. I now own the Sharp Elite. I have no biases or predispositions, I'm simply looking for the best PQ, and yes, I am a videophile. In fact there are many 'videophiles' that own the Elite. To see a calibrated Elite and still retain the opinion that this tech is of 'poor quality', would be the height of denial IMO. Does the tech have negatives? Of course, every tech does. I would not recommend an Elite (or most LED/LCDs) for those that require wide viewing angles. However if someone doesn't have that criteria on their 'must have' list, you bet I'd recommend an Elite if PQ is very high on their list.

To make a blanket statement that this tech is of poor quality, is living in the past.

Well it's maybe useful to point out (as was pointed out to me earlier) that I'm not the minority in feeling that 70"+ is too big for nearly any room. I'm the minority only here in AV centric forums. So as far as size by itself, there are going to be large TV's that willl be passed on, not because of their cost, but because they're not wanted.

That said, if many here are right, it'll still likely be the case that a 55" UHD IGZO will be substantially cheaper than a 55" SD OLED for a while. But I keep seeing size (as such) thrown around as one of the qualifiers and I'm starting to wonder if maybe it matters less than many think in terms of sales. Are we getting CES-myopic?

"old days" ???

I completely agree!

LaserDisc era.

Sure. And the current days are all photoshoped too. If you're convinced otherwise, you'll have to explain how every single display on amazon has the equivalently fantastic picture.

It's hardly "the old days".

From that statement, I think it is safe to say you have a bias against LCD

Except that people HAVE been putting up with the "poor quality of LCD" for years.

I think the reason for that is, not surprisingly, most people aren't videophiles. You can go back in the avs archives and find myriad stories of people who had purchased a new 1080 or 720 display and still had it hooked up to SD cable, not even knowing it, at least until the poster pointed it out. Unit sales of dvd still outstrip unit sales of Blu-Ray. Not every new title, but overall. Even in dollar sales, dvd > BD by nearly 3:1, (more like 2:1 just before Christmas) according to homemediamagazine. That indicates to me that most people are not as interested in video quality as many here would like to think.
LCD does have weaknesses, but how "bad" are they to the average purchaser? I'd say not very. The cheaper the panel, for a given size, generally the higher the sales. Most people just aren't looking for a living room tv with "deep blacks" or nearly perfect off-axis viewing. Most people just don't care, and if they can save $100 dollars on a panel they will trade off both of those qualities to get it. I watch my tv in a dimly lit room, and my projector with the lights off, but most watch tv in a room with a couple of lights on, where high contrast will never be noticed.

If you put a properly calibrated oled tv next to a torch mode, saturated lcd in best buy or fry's, same size, same resolution, I think you'd find a lot more people commenting positively on the lcd colours than the oled blacks, or off axis viewing.

I look forward to oled, but it won't outstrip lcd sales until the price for similar size panel at same resolution is also similar. Most consumers are more price concious than performance concious. I'd also suggest that they would value reliability or longevity over performance, but not over price. Not to the extreme of course.

FWIW, I just upgraded my 65" crt rear projector with a 60" plasma.

It's not an issue of not being videophiles or not, though certainly most of the older generation don't seem to care - at least not in my experience. Does HD cable cost more than SD? There's your reason. The content is the same, why should they pay more for it?
Same problem. Blu-ray costs most than DVD. And it's far less convenient than DVD. Just about everyone has some way of playing back a DVD now. A Blu-ray disc will only work in a Blu-ray player, so you can't just lend them out to friends, unless you ask whether they have a Blu-ray player first, and often the answer is "I don't know". You might have a Blu-ray player hooked up to your main TV, but not the TV in the kitchen/bedroom or other places in the house. I know a lot of people that don't have a bedroom TV - they don't watch TV in bed enough to justify having one in there, but they will sometimes take their notebook through with them and watch a DVD that way - can't do that unless you have a Blu-ray drive, and these days it seems to be DVD or nothing in notebooks. This is actually somewhere that streaming services like Netflix win, especially if they have an iPad rather than a notebook.
In fact, LCD is typically better for most people, because they can go much brighter, which is the number one most important thing for a lot of people I know. Look at a row of TVs in the store with LCDs and Plasmas next to each other, and it's no wonder why Plasma sales are dwindling.
Absolutely. I had to really struggle to convince my parents to buy an LCD from a brand name rather than a no-name LCD that was bigger and half the price, back when they were looking to get a flat panel. They're glad that they did now, after hearing how friends' cheap sets have all died now, but even though it was well within their budget, they really didn't see why they should spend any more money.

If the United States gave China Taiwan in exchange for producing cheap OLEDs would that stop the world wide LCD Army?

I'm for ANYTHING that stops LCD!

I think Artwood is secretly loving LCD. You gotta read between the lines. (Squint a lot).