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 171

post #5101 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger 
My bet is that 2-3 years from now any LCD 65" and above will be 4K unless you shop at Costco/Walmart for their bottom end set in those sizes.

Well as stated before, analysts expect 0.8% market penetration of 4K TV's by the year 2017.

You guys might not be referring to the same thing.

Are they using standard market segment analysis terminology for that number? In other words, do they mean 0.8% installed base (in people's home), or 0.8% marketed (and for sale) in 2017. I think the latter number to be very very unlikely and much too small. I'm only guessing of course, but by 2017, the percentage of sets on the shelves that are UHD will be much higher than 0.8%.
post #5102 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

You guys might not be referring to the same thing.

Are they using standard market segment analysis terminology for that number? In other words, do they mean 0.8% installed base (in people's home), or 0.8% marketed (and for sale) in 2017. I think the latter number to be very very unlikely and much too small. I'm only guessing of course, but by 2017, the percentage of sets on the shelves that are UHD will be much higher than 0.8%.

Well, here's one link on it. There are a ton of them if you google it but I'm sure they are just giving their best estimate as well.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4k-tv-shipments-rise-2-103101036.html
post #5103 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

Well, here's one link on it. There are a ton of them if you google it but I'm sure they are just giving their best estimate as well.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4k-tv-shipments-rise-2-103101036.html

Well color me naive then. It just seems that from 2013 to 2017 is an eternity in high-tech, even with all the fab issues, and 0.8 percent shipped seems *vanishingly* small.

That's only 1 in every 125 shipments.
post #5104 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Well color me naive then. It just seems that from 2013 to 2017 is an eternity in high-tech, even with all the fab issues, and 0.8 percent shipped seems *vanishingly* small.

That's only 1 in every 125 shipments.

One point I just realized upon reading some of these articles is they continue to say 0.8% of global shipments. Does that mean that U.S. sales might be 10-20% while the rest of the world is playing catch up? I suppose that leaves a huge amount of room for speculation.

And yes, 4 years can be an eternity in high tech. But not always.

Let's consider the last 5 years in TV tech and PQ improvements. 5 years ago, We were just starting to move away from CCFL into edge lit LED/LCD's. Edge lit had the advantage of being thinner, but not better PQ. The Pioneer Kuro had just entered the market place and still to this day is considered the best PQ set in existance by many. Local dimming technology had hit the marketplace as well. Now, 5 years later all that has happened is we now have 3D which most consider a gimmick. The Kuro has disappeared. Edge lit sets rule the LCD world as the local dimming sets are starting to stop production. The VT50 plasma was introduced which is considered a good set but still no Kuro. To me there has been very little advancement in television tech in the last 5 years unless you want to count 3D, which I don't personally
Edited by kdog750 - 1/29/13 at 10:33am
post #5105 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

As far as the static nature of PQ is concerned, people may not like to admit it, but the better displays are more than enough for the overwhelming majority of the public. Add to that the fact that we're getting so close to the limits of visual acuity (barring 200" displays) and there simply isn't a ton of room for significant improvements.

Except for viewing angle, contrast ratio, motion blur, image uniformity, image retention and a number of other things.
post #5106 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

You mean except for th 4 years in a row panasonic lied about the mll increase huh?

Panasonic makes razors too. They are no better than any other big company.
For the sets from 2009-2011? I agree that casts a shadow on their reputation of recent.
post #5107 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

One point I just realized upon reading some of these articles is they continue to say 0.8% of global shipments. Does that mean that U.S. sales might be 10-20% while the rest of the world is playing catch up? I suppose that leaves a huge amount of room for speculation.

And yes, 4 years can be an eternity in high tech. But not always.

Let's consider the last 5 years in TV tech and PQ improvements. 5 years ago, We were just starting to move away from CCFL into edge lit LED/LCD's. Edge lit had the advantage of being thinner, but not better PQ. The Pioneer Kuro had just entered the market place and still to this day is considered the best PQ set in existance by many. Local dimming technology had hit the marketplace as well. Now, 5 years later all that has happened is we now have 3D which most consider a gimmick.

No, you might have just accidentally made my own argument for me. If 5 years ago is the stake in the sand, and you wish to make that the inception moment for edge-lit, then lets go with it. Did 4 years after that stake in the sand result in only 0.8% of shipments being edgelit?

The analogy is to some degree apples and oranges before we even start, but it still seems to me that 0.8% is remarkably low. Four years? 1 in 125? Really?
post #5108 of 9481
TGM, I think the forecast is probably wrong, too, but keep in mind:

1) No TV under 50" will have 4K, even by 2017.

2) The 50" and up market is currently only about 10% of the the total TV market.

3) Even if we figure that doubling, it still leaves 80% of the TVs below 50" in 2017.

4) The reason the unit totals are so much bigger below 50" is because in aggregate the world doesn't demand big TVs. That's not just because emerging economics have so many more people than we do -- of course they do -- but because there are lots of secondary spaces for TVs as well as primary places. Then you add in the people for whom the primary TV is 46" or below (and in the U.S., 46" is still the most popular size!).

5) Mathematically, it leaves a small slice of the market for advanced technologies to emerge.

So let's say the forecast is doubly pessimistic: 50" and up is still under 10% and only 1 in 10 has 4K. Both of those seem pretty likely to prove false, most especially the latter. Over a 5-year period, with incremental cost approaching of 4K approaching zero, it should reach all the top end and most mid-range sets. So it should only fail to be in entry-level sets over 50".

That said, when I do that math, I will admit I don't necessarily get numbers hugely north of 4-6% of the total market. Of course, with those numbers, I get 10-15 million sold in 2017. That still puts 4K sales right up there with OLED sales for similar periods. Obviously, the error margin in that is too wide to be useful. But DisplaySearch doesn't disagree with me: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/130104_4k_lcd_tvs_expected_to_outpace_oled_tv_shipments.asp
post #5109 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

I'll be staying with the Elite. My next TV will be 64K with holographic 4D and Smell-o-vision smile.gif


To be honest kdog, if I knew for sure I could get a 70" Elite without the Nov build date issues, it too would be high on my list.
post #5110 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, you might have just accidentally made my own argument for me. If 5 years ago is the stake in the sand, and you wish to make that the inception moment for edge-lit, then lets go with it. Did 4 years after that stake in the sand result in only 0.8% of shipments being edgelit?

The analogy is to some degree apples and oranges before we even start, but it still seems to me that 0.8% is remarkably low. Four years? 1 in 125? Really?

You can't compare edge lit tv's to a completely different standard in resolution. Going edge lit was a relatively cheap manufacturing method for an already existing 1080p medium. It's main marketing hype was "thin" while not increasing PQ. As you said, it really is apples and oranges. Going edgelit was staying completely within the confines of pricing and momentum of a current medium. 4K is a different medium that is extremely expensive to produce, has no current medium, and whose benefits will only be seen in a bare minimum of 60" are above. Most don't own a 60" or above. As some said before it is a restriction of living room space for many.

Keep in mind, Im not saying I'm right and you are wrong, I'm just thinking out loud.
post #5111 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatstreet View Post

Except for viewing angle, contrast ratio, motion blur, image uniformity, image retention and a number of other things.

Contrast ratio is very very high in the better sets. I really don't think many will get excited by higher CRs. We already have retina-burning whites in many LED/LCDs and blacks that are extremely dark.

Viewing angle is less of a limitation in the newer displays (including LED/LCDs) according to those that attended CES. It is a non-issue with plasma.

Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many. It certainly doesn't bother me on my Elite with the proper settings engaged.

Image retention is more an issue with plasma than the other techs and even there it's not a major issue.

Image uniformity is one area I'll agree with you on. But even there some displays are quite good and I don't think for some it would be an area of improvement that would make them switch.
post #5112 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

You can't compare edge lit tv's to a completely different standard in resolution. Going edge lit was a relatively cheap manufacturing method for an already existing 1080p medium. It's main marketing hype was "thin" while not increasing PQ. As you said, it really is apples and oranges. Going edgelit was staying completely within the confines of pricing and momentum of a current medium. 4K is a different medium that is extremely expensive to produce, has no current medium, and whose benefits will only be seen in a bare minimum of 60" are above. Most don't own a 60" or above. As some said before it is a restriction of living room space for many.

Keep in mind, Im not saying I'm right and you are wrong, I'm just thinking out loud.

Is it actually expensive to produce? I thought I remembered Rogo saying it was relatively cheap to implement and would therefore be included in all mid to upper tier LCDs around 50 inches and up within a few years.
post #5113 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

TGM, I think the forecast is probably wrong, too, but keep in mind:

1) No TV under 50" will have 4K, even by 2017.

2) The 50" and up market is currently only about 10% of the the total TV market.

3) Even if we figure that doubling, it still leaves 80% of the TVs below 50" in 2017.

4) The reason the unit totals are so much bigger below 50" is because in aggregate the world doesn't demand big TVs. That's not just because emerging economics have so many more people than we do -- of course they do -- but because there are lots of secondary spaces for TVs as well as primary places. Then you add in the people for whom the primary TV is 46" or below (and in the U.S., 46" is still the most popular size!).

5) Mathematically, it leaves a small slice of the market for advanced technologies to emerge.

So let's say the forecast is doubly pessimistic: 50" and up is still under 10% and only 1 in 10 has 4K. Both of those seem pretty likely to prove false, most especially the latter. Over a 5-year period, with incremental cost approaching of 4K approaching zero, it should reach all the top end and most mid-range sets. So it should only fail to be in entry-level sets over 50".

That said, when I do that math, I will admit I don't necessarily get numbers hugely north of 4-6% of the total market. Of course, with those numbers, I get 10-15 million sold in 2017. That still puts 4K sales right up there with OLED sales for similar periods. Obviously, the error margin in that is too wide to be useful. But DisplaySearch doesn't disagree with me: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/130104_4k_lcd_tvs_expected_to_outpace_oled_tv_shipments.asp

Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance. I want a 40-42" 4k for my next PC monitor and long before 2017. Like going from an iPad 1 to iPad 3.
post #5114 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance.
Why is seeing pixels a detriment? I purposefully turn off all antialiasing and font-smoothing settings just to maintain a crisp look. Computer monitors have different "charters" than TV's IMO. I like to have a real honest to God edge to focus on. smile.gif I can see pixels on the 12 point letter "x" on my 15.4" 1280x800. And It's great.
post #5115 of 9481
From everything i've heard it seems like it is going to be a few years before OLED and 4K LCD are viable realities--by that I mean capable of 65-inch size with at least ZT60 picture quality and COMPARABLY priced.

Let me ask this question and see if ANY one is brave enough to answer it--will there be a bridge TV until OLED and 4K are viable realities?

The bridge would be would be a 70-inch display or larger with picture quality slightly better than any Kuro or the current Sharp Elite and not costing over 4.5K--in other words about as great 1080p performance as one could possibly imagine with improvements in all current picture quality parameters?

If there isn't it seems like it will be the same old same old until 2017!

If that is true then the video display world SUX!!!



P.S. Since Panasonic bought the Pioneer patents do you think that the president of Panasonic has a better than Kuro prototype in a cave in Japan that is guarded by Godzilla?
post #5116 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Why is seeing pixels a detriment? I purposefully turn off all antialiasing and font-smoothing settings just to maintain a crisp look. Computer monitors have different "charters" than TV's IMO. I like to have a real honest to God edge to focus on. smile.gif I can see pixels on the 12 point letter "x" on my 15.4" 1280x800. And It's great.

Are you related to Art?biggrin.gif
post #5117 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance. I want a 40-42" 4k for my next PC monitor and long before 2017. Like going from an iPad 1 to iPad 3.

I read Monoprice is introducing a 4K PC monitor under their own name this march. I believe it will only be 27" though.
post #5118 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty819 View Post

Is it actually expensive to produce? I thought I remembered Rogo saying it was relatively cheap to implement and would therefore be included in all mid to upper tier LCDs around 50 inches and up within a few years.

Well certainly expensive at first but relatively cheap compared to producing a 4K OLED TV for sure. Mass production will drive the cost down as the demand cranks up. But the big question is, how much demand will there be for 4K sets? If the Chinese come in with slave labor produced decent quality 4K sets for cheaper than 2K sets, then 4K will take over rather fast.
post #5119 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty819 View Post

Is it actually expensive to produce? I thought I remembered Rogo saying it was relatively cheap to implement and would therefore be included in all mid to upper tier LCDs around 50 inches and up within a few years.

4K is not expensive to produce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

Certainly hope you are wrong about nothing under 50" in 4K by 2017. I use a 37" 1080p LCD as a PC monitor. Biggest I could go without seeing pixels at my viewing distance. I want a 40-42" 4k for my next PC monitor and long before 2017. Like going from an iPad 1 to iPad 3.

Sorry, my post above is really about TV only. I expect a lot of 4K monitors to reach the market. I'm just not of the opinion you will see 40" 4K TVs anytime soon that you can repurpose as monitors.

The difference? A 4K monitor will come at a nice premium -- witness the 2500 x 1600 monitors today vs. the 1920 x 1080 ones -- while a 40" 4K TV might be a bargain, if it comes to pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Contrast ratio is very very high in the better sets. I really don't think many will get excited by higher CRs. We already have retina-burning whites in many LED/LCDs and blacks that are extremely dark.

Viewing angle is less of a limitation in the newer displays (including LED/LCDs) according to those that attended CES. It is a non-issue with plasma.

Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many. It certainly doesn't bother me on my Elite with the proper settings engaged.

Image retention is more an issue with plasma than the other techs and even there it's not a major issue.

Image uniformity is one area I'll agree with you on. But even there some displays are quite good and I don't think for some it would be an area of improvement that would make them switch.

Right, nothing on that least is so compelling, especially to more than a small segment of the market, that it's going to sweep people off their feet.

Hell, high-end picture quality already is a niche within a niche.
post #5120 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

I am very surprised at how static improvements to picture quality have been over the last 5 years. And with the exception of a very small handful of sets, PQ has actually taken a step backwards.
Color, contrast and motion have all seen big improvements across the board in the last five years, and we have seen the introduction of 3D. Even lower-end panels are now showing very good BT.709 color these days. How is that "static"? I think you should go back and look at what was available five years ago and compare that with today's offerings from the same manufacturers.
post #5121 of 9481
Computer monitors don't really follow the general idea of needing certain size to have full resolution. Even a small 15" monitor will have 1080p these days.Most of you don't realize that young gamers are a big driving force behind popularization to new display technologies.
Those kids/young adult probably still live at home or started working but don't have a family yet to support. They have a lot of disposable cash. 15 million discrete GPUs were shipped in Q2 2012 alone and it was considered to be a slow quarter. So expand that into a whole year, you would expect at least 70-90 millions shipped for the last annum. As a mid-level hard core gamer myself, I would agree that average users replace their GPU every year and half, so that's about 150 million more or less active consumers. If they're willing to spend few hundred hard earned (or parents earned) dollars on just a GPU, it's not hard to understand that they will be wiling to invest in a latest flagship monitor, especially considering that 4k is now a new generation, no longer just minor annual updates.

Of course the 24-32 inch category displays will be the ones mainly effected, but it has an indirect effect on the prices of bigger displays.

I do agree that it won't be too quick for 4k displays to come down in price and
post #5122 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Color, contrast and motion have all seen big improvements across the board in the last five years, and we have seen the introduction of 3D. Even lower-end panels are now showing very good BT.709 color these days. How is that "static"? I think you should go back and look at what was available five years ago and compare that with today's offerings from the same manufacturers.

Well about 4 years ago the Samsung full array back lit set (8500) was rated very highly. Shortly after they pulled it and before the Elite was manufactured, we went through a plethora of VERY crappy edge lit TV's with horrible uniformity issues, spot lighting and streaking. I remember being very pissed at myself for not grabbing an 8500 and being stuck in limbo with no viable alternative. I was not interested in plasma because of my viewing environment. So going from the deep inky blacks of the 8500 to the streaky grey-blue blacks of the edge lit sets was a huge step backwards in PQ. To me at least.
post #5123 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

Well about 4 years ago the Samsung full array back lit set (8500) was rated very highly. Shortly after they pulled it and before the Elite was manufactured, we went through a plethora of VERY crappy edge lit TV's with horrible uniformity issues, spot lighting and streaking. I remember being very pissed at myself for not grabbing an 8500 and being stuck in limbo with no viable alternative. I was not interested in plasma because of my viewing environment. So going from the deep inky blacks of the 8500 to the streaky grey-blue blacks of the edge lit sets was a huge step backwards in PQ. To me at least.

IIRC, Samsung also shot themselves in the foot with their mid-range TV's with crappy firmware controls (they were there in principal, but people couldn't seem to get them to "behave"), and their horrendous lack of control over their panel lottery (perhaps the latter begot the former). You literally had people returning boxes immediately at the door that didn't have serial number stickers starting with SQ01 or SQ03 (Samsung created). From the reviews it looks like they must've cleaned that particular act of theirs up in the last couple years.
post #5124 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
OMG yes.
post #5125 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Contrast ratio is very very high in the better sets. I really don't think many will get excited by higher CRs. We already have retina-burning whites in many LED/LCDs and blacks that are extremely dark.

Yes, but the LED/LCD with good contrast ratio is much more expensive.
Quote:
Viewing angle is less of a limitation in the newer displays (including LED/LCDs) according to those that attended CES. It is a non-issue with plasma.

I haven't seen any IGZO panels. I hope that it does improve viewing angle. Contrast at off center viewing angles is something I really would like to see improved and is my biggest complaint with LCD.
Quote:
Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many. It certainly doesn't bother me on my Elite with the proper settings engaged.

It depends on what you are watching. It is obvious for any one if the motion is fast enough.
Quote:
Image retention is more an issue with plasma than the other techs and even there it's not a major issue.

A plasma screen can 'glow' with the ghost of an image for hours. It's annoying.
Quote:
Image uniformity is one area I'll agree with you on. But even there some displays are quite good and I don't think for some it would be an area of improvement that would make them switch.

I'm glad you concede that there is room for improvement of something.

I did not mention compression artifacts and lag which are also areas where there is room for improvement.
post #5126 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatstreet View Post

It depends on what you are watching. It is obvious for any one if the motion is fast enough.
It's funny, because most "motion blur" complaints are actually about the source material. Unless you're playing video games, motion blur is not an issue with most flat panels today.
post #5127 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

I read Monoprice is introducing a 4K PC monitor under their own name this march. I believe it will only be 27" though.

I'm fairly sure the monitor you are referring to is 2560 x 1600 (or whatever that pixel count is).
post #5128 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

It's funny, because most "motion blur" complaints are actually about the source material. Unless you're playing video games, motion blur is not an issue with most flat panels today.

Trust me, you know I've been pounding my keyboard about native FPS loudly (and forEVER).

But it doesn't change the fact that some panels are better than others (today) at motion. I'm very sensitive to it, and some I can watch a football game on, and others I cannot.
post #5129 of 9481
I would wager that motion blur to you is the equivalent of dithering to Chrono. wink.gif
post #5130 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Trust me, you know I've been pounding my keyboard about native FPS loudly (and forEVER).

But it doesn't change the fact that some panels are better than others (today) at motion. I'm very sensitive to it, and some I can watch a football game on, and others I cannot.
I didn't mean to imply that there weren't any differences between displays, just that most "motion blur" complaints are actually about the source content than the display. And I don't mean native framerate, though that is important, but simply due to the shutter speeds used on the cameras. For example, I've seen lots of complaints about objects blurring as they move across the screen, or when the camera pans, but if you actually pause the image, you see that it's source material itself, and what you're seeing is motion blur caused by the camera.

Random shot from the Blu-ray I happened to have in right now:
screenshot8zi5f.png

Here you see that you can't read the text on the van, and the background is also blurred, but that wouldn't change no matter how good the display gets.

While there are still differences between panels, most of them are now a lot better than they were a couple of years ago - particularly LCDs - as manufacturers have been forced to improve motion handling to add good 3D support. (at least with Active 3D)


With games though, there are still lots that don't use any kind of motion blur (and many people prefer not to have any if it's optional) so you are supposed to have perfectly sharp motion at all times, and that's what really shows motion handling differences between displays, rather than any filmed content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I would wager that motion blur to you is the equivalent of dithering to Chrono. wink.gif
Posterization is my biggest complaint about most displays these days, though dithering can be a side-effect of that. (the Kuros used a lot of dither to try and mask it, for example)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread