OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 171

Originally Posted by kdog750 


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

Originally Posted by tgm1024 

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%.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

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

Originally Posted by tgm1024 

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.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross 

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.

Originally Posted by David_B 

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.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

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.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

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

Originally Posted by tgm1024 

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?

Originally Posted by Whatstreet 

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

Originally Posted by kdog750 

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.

Originally Posted by rogo 

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

Originally Posted by dsinger 

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.

Originally Posted by tgm1024 

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. I can see pixels on the 12 point letter "x" on my 15.4" 1280x800. And It's great.

Originally Posted by dsinger 

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.

Originally Posted by Ty819 

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.

Originally Posted by Ty819 

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.

Originally Posted by dsinger 

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.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross 

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.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

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.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 

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.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

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.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross 

Motion blur is also a matter of sensitivity for many.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross 

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.

Originally Posted by Whatstreet 

It depends on what you are watching. It is obvious for any one if the motion is fast enough.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

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

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 

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.

Originally Posted by tgm1024 

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.

Originally Posted by vinnie97 

I would wager that motion blur to you is the equivalent of dithering to Chrono.