OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 184

Greenland with the funnies. O'LED, lol

Good luck in seeing the pentile structure on a 1080p 5" screen.

That will be interesting research question: Can pentile be noticeable in some circumstances on a display with 441 ppi density?

I hope it's the latter.

Since it's pentile, it's kind of easy to jack up the resolution. None of this, of course, means they can make bigger displays however, which is all we really care about. And, right, importantly, none of the AMOLED phones are kicking the ass of the non-AMOLED phones with high-quality LCD displays. There is no night-and-day difference or even a LeBron vs. Carmelo difference. It's more a LeBron vs. KD difference.

Good one, "Green"land....

And, yes, there is a zero percent chance this guy has an OLED display. Not 0.000000001%. But precisely 0%.

Well it's not a 1080p screen if it's Pentile. Pentile only uses two subpixels per pixel, so technically it only has 2/3 the resolution of a 1080p display - lower resolution than the iPhone. (294 PPI vs 326 PPI)
Why would OLED be immune to uniformity issues?

Well, it's technically 1080 x 2, as opposed to 720 x anything, which is what you're statement sort of implies.

A standard RGB display uses 3 subpixels per pixel as a matter of course, Pentile displays use RG pixels alternating with BG pixels. So the total number of subpixels is certainly 2/3 as you state, but the translation of that to PPI is more arguable.
It wouldn't be immune, but it should be similarly susceptible to plasma because so long as the material is laid evenly and the voltages are applied evenly, you can expect uniformity. Now whether we get that today or not is another matter. But it won't have the same kind of uniformity issues as LCD, which are a function of light guide tolerances and alignment with edge-lighting assemblies.

Well I suppose it is still "1920x1080" but it's a crap 1920x1080.

Perhaps we should be measuring subpixels-per-inch now?
iPhone 5: 978
Galaxy S4: 881
Xperia Z: 1322

The only problem is that it then implies that RGBY or RGBW displays will look better than RGB ones (they do not) and that an ideal display with no subpixels would be much lower resolution.

I also do not expect meaningful OLED shipments before 2015. But I do hope they will come.

However, things may be greatly delayed, as I suspect South Korea has much more to be concerned about, and will shortly have to deal with, as regards NK.

I think the point you make is why it's easier and more correct to call the display 1920 x 1080 while acknowledging it's Pentile and therefore, 1920 x 1080 (x 2) instead of (x 3).

If we start getting into subpixels per inch, we're going to regret the meaninglessness of those metrics very soon.

And, let me say Chron, I agree with you on the inferiority of Pentile. That said, the Samsung displays are better at higher resolution with Pentile than the earlier AMOLEDs were at lower resolution with Pentile. That is, the damage is lower the higher the nominal pixel count gets. The early reports are this 1920 x 1080 display is the best yet --- and we'll all know soon enough.

The idea that it's much better than an LCD remains false and when there is IGZO LCD readily available -- which I suspect will happen next year -- it may be even more false.

The question is if the high density blurs pentility so much it is not recognizable anymore. If that is the case, Samsung made right decision not to push full RGB OLED. Sales of the Galaxy IV are estimated to be around 44 mln in the first two quarters from its launch. This is giant volume in highly profitable business. The PQ of the AMOLED is not its big advantage in mobile but its thinness is. All this means OLED has future but it remains to be seen if it is so in the TV business which is stodgy, low- if not unprofitable and suffering from image problem: young generations prefer personal full HD on their mobiles than a communal big full HD in the living room.

I doubt very much that anyone is even noticing these extra pixels on these 5" phones to be honest. I mean, it's fine they're there, but if resolutions had remained at 720 levels instead of pushing to 1080, I'm confident the screens could have been very nearly equally gorgeous.

It's really a marketing thing more than a functional thing and, if anything, requires the pixel-based assets to be re-sized yet again to be tappable by human fingers. But now that we've reached 1920 x 1080, I'm fairly confident we're done with phone resolution.

The question is if 1080 pentile structure is noticeable in some way in certain circumstances. This may not have any practical significance, it is just a test if nothing more than pentile is needed.

It should be so but market forces are blind like darwinian evolution which once produced dinosaurs . There is already talk that graphics chips in those dino mobiles are capable to drive external monitors @2560x1600 .

Even on desktop PCs, however, the penetration of >1920 x 1080 is well, well, well, well, well under 1% several years into its availability.

While we are both aware of why this should change on desktops, it's hard to imagine why it should change on mobiles.

Mobiles have much faster technology diffusion and replacement rates. This year the number of mobiles with full HD displays may easily
reach 100 mln.

I don't know what sub pixel structure Samsung is using in the S4 but DisplaySearch reports We believe that Samsung has revamped its sub-pixel layout to achieve FHD resolution using its existing FMM (Fine Metal Mask) evaporation process. Samsung might be using the advanced s-stripe with hexagonal and diamond-shaped pixels to achieve the higher ppi.

The s-stripe arrangement has several advantages. First, the display readability is significantly improved compared to traditional Pentile, which has two sub-pixels per pixel. S-stripe has three sub-pixels per pixel, and an advanced design may have five. The second advantage is that s-stripe may enable longer lifetimes for the display. Normally, the blue organic material has the shortest lifetime; in s-stripe, the blue sub-pixel domain is larger than that of the other colors. This means that the luminance per area can be less for blue, which is less stressful. In this way, the entire OLED display’s lifetime can be extended.

If an s-stripe or advanced version sub-pixel layout is the ultimate solution for AMOLED to achieve 400 ppi+ resolution, then it could be a competitive advantage for Samsung.



The S4 will also have an Adapt Display feature according to Raymond Soneira, Displaymate's display guru who has previously criticized Samsung for the lack of calibration on their AMOLED displays - the colors are too saturated, the whites are too blue, and the intensity scales are too steep.

As Raymond points out, Samsung's own S4 site shows a CIE chromaticity diagram and a gray scale level picker (see screenshot above). This leads Raymond to believe that the S4 will have extensive color, white-point, and display calibration adjustments. This could be a "major display advancement and a win for Samsung and AMOLED displays" - according to Raymond.

Raymond adds that this multi-parameter interactive display calibration software will make it possible for such an OLED to accurately provide any desired color gamut, white point color temperature, and intensity scale. This is actually much harder for LCDs to implement because they are internally a non-linear analog display technology at the panel level, whereas OLEDs are digitally driven via Pulse Width Modulation (PWM).

LCDs have a non-linear and irregular S Shaped Transfer Characteristic (light output versus drive signal) that makes it harder to accurately implement the various calibration variables. On the other hand, OLEDs driven with PWM respond in a straight-forward linear fashion that makes it easy to accurately calculate and precisely adjust the various parameters.

No kidding. But so what? How you extrapolate from this that they are going to go from an already pointless resolution to an ever higher resolution is incomprehensible.

There is no way humans are going to care about 440ppi vs. 350 ppi... And no one is going to even want more pixels because things with fixed-sized icons become a mess if you again scale the pixel count.

This is pretty meaningless for devices designed to last 2-4 years unless the displays weren't already lasting 2-4 years. I mean it's good, but of course no LCD was having an issue here.
Over other AMOLEDs... not vs. LCD.
Again, so what? On 5" displays this matters a lot to whom? No one who bought an S3 and loved the screen (i.e. "the vast majority of owners"). Unless Samsung can make bigger screens using the same technology -- which we have every reason to believe is not even happening -- then this isn't important. I suppose the caveat here is that Samsung will likely scale this up to 7" screens where someone might care a bit more.. but really only a bit. People just aren't losing sleep over display calibration on their 5" phone.

Oh, also, the linked DisplaySearch item rants on about how "the blue area can be bigger" and then shows the blue area as the tiniest of the 3 colors... I assume the diagram is just wrong, but it's kind of odd and funny.

The importance of this is interesting to me.

Is this to have a broader range of manufacturing results all look the same? (That would theoretically allow more subcontractors produce phone panels that can still be used.) (No?) But otherwise, I can't imagine there are many folks who would care much about super accurate color on a phone. I certainly couldn't care less, and I can't imagine my wife, my neighbors, or anyone's kids running in circles screaming about it.

I'm sure an interior decorator might care, maybe. {shrug}

I think its an answer to all of the gadget bloggers who complain about the oversaturated colors in their reviews. I dont think it means much to average consumers, but reviewers are nitpicking tiny difference between these handsets.

I sure hope the thread is not going to be taken over with smart phone talk again, since it is a thread for OLED TV news and developments. Is there no place else for on this site for people to post about those tiny little phone screens?

I remain highly dismissive of the notion that Samsung's progress on smartphone displays matters much (at all?) for TVs. And the fact they are already moving away from FMM RGB to LG's RGBW vapor-deposition, no-pixels method of TV mfg. speaks volumes.

FYI, here is the pentile structure of the S4:

Assuming that picture is accurate, I'm not seeing how that's an exciting change. It's geometrically different, but still RGBG. It also renders false the claim of an enlarged blue area.

I presume there is some reason why RBGB is impossible, which is really too bad.

And, honestly, Pentile still sucks.

But in the S4 subpixel density is so high it may effectively mask pentile.

My point in this discussion is that it looks OLED has still life ahead due to Samsung pushing it into their new mobile flagship. If not this I would be much less certain about OLED breaking into the TV world. Now, mobile OLED can help TV OLED in the economic sense. There was enormous discussion here about LG getting preorder for 100 pcs of 55" OLED TVs. Such numbers have nothing to do with economy. But Samsung may move 50 mln OLED mobile displays this year and this will bring collosal economy of scale to OLED which may help jump start OLED TVs too.

Well, the only OLED devices available to comment on so far are cellphones. Everything else is speculation on Vaporware as of now.

"Panasonic Sony Sumitomo Lifetime Blue color OLED TV 4K2K (UHD) P-OLED Ink-jet printing
At CES 2013 Panasonic unveiled a 56" 4K (3840x2160) OLED TV panel prototype that was produced using an all-printing method. Back in January we assumed Panasonic were using SMOLED materials, but now Sumitomo Chemical revealed (as part of their 2013-2015 plan presentation) that this TV prototype used the company's PLED materials.

http://www.oled-info.com/panasonics-printed-56-4k-oled-tv-prototype-uses-sumitomos-pled-materials


Panasonic has been working on OLED printing technologies for quite some time and back in 2009, they teamed up with Sumitomo to jointly-develop OLED TVs, based on Sumitomo's P-OLED materials and technology."

Fair enough.
Except that Samsung is going to use none of the technology in the mobile displays for TVs. Are you not getting that or are you just being a pain in the rear for some other reason? There is no manufacturing synergy between those 50 million mobile displays using the FMM RGB tech and the RGBW TVs they are heading towards. And even if they made 500 million, it seems clear they have given up trying to make large-screen FMM displays because SMS was a terrible idea and it's not going to scale.

So there is no "colossal" scale at all. It's more like saying, "Hey, since HP makes millions upon millions of printers, they ought to be able to make printing presses well, too." While they might, the two aren't linked.

(Oh, also, there are about 100x mobile phone screens in the area of one TV. So even if there were economies of scale that were related -- and, again, there aren't -- it would be like making 500,000 TVs. The best way to get good at making 500,000 TVs would be ... to make 500,000 TVs... Not to make 50 million phone screens,)

I have not said a word that mobile tech is to be reused on the TV side. Not. Though TV side is in some way simpler than mobile due to much lower density /though it has its own difficulties/. What I am saying is that there is OLED volume generated by mobile and this blows some future into the OLED tech in general. In other words if Samsung would not try to blow another life into mobile OLED this year future of OLED would be looking really bleak. But here it is, 2K OLED@5" - don't blame it's only pentile . This means OLED is not left behind and it is competing with full HD mobile LCDs.

So your argument is that OLED hype will continue because OLED, which was already in a bunch of phones, is going to be in a bunch of phones...

This is even less persuasive.

Your other argument -- that had Samsung abandoned OLED for phones (something that didn't seem to have any chance of happening anyway) -- OLED would be dead is not one many people in the industry were taking seriously.

I don't see any relationship between the continued success of OLED in mobile phones and the growth of OLED TVs. And -- if anything -- a year after the OLED TVs were first announced, I'm less certain that OLEDs are going to have 100% market share in smartphones. I'm not saying they won't, just that I was certain they would a year ago and now I don't really know.

Maybe they could arrange a few dozen Samsung phones in a grid to form a big screen.

In a couple of years, they would only need a fraction of them, the way they're increasing the screen sizes of phones.

OLED is still less energy efficient for web applications than LCD and the color accuracy of the AMOLEDs in phones are said to be still inferior to the LCD in the iPhone.

So what's the point? Deeper blacks but the other colors are whack. Is that what we're going to get out of big-screen OLEDs?

It's also worth noting that LCDs continue to improve on power consumption (better LEDs for another few years at least, IGZO), while OLED may or may not have much room to go in the smartphone space. But I don't want to keep derailing this discussion to talk phones. I just don't see how the continued use of AMOLEDs in a phone that already used them matters one bit to the adoption/growth of OLED TVs. I suppose irkuck is correct that if Samsung abandoned AMOLED for the phones, that would be bad. But it had no chance of happening.