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 190

post #5671 of 9438
Well, given that there is next to nothing with IGZO in production globally and LG has none of it and tried to jump straight to 55" IGZO backbones, we shouldn't be surprised they did so in a relatively crude manner.

I'm sure it'll mature as a tech; but it's off to a really, really slow start.
post #5672 of 9438
Panasonic announced end of Plasma the 2013 series is the last one, they are shifting to OELED smile.gif
post #5673 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Panasonic announced end of Plasma the 2013 series is the last one, they are shifting to OELED smile.gif

Not exactly, They announced the end of Plasma R&D and shifting that resource to OLED (which is a good thing).

The best information from Junkies site is that there will be a 2014 Plasma's with some improvement but not groundbreaking because they are near reference.

- Rich
post #5674 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Panasonic announced end of Plasma the 2013 series is the last one


Here we go. This is where I knew the conclusions would be prematurely drawn and what was said will be misquoted or worse: partially quoted, and then endlessly parroted around forums and the water cooler. Did you read the article?
post #5675 of 9438
Right, so pretty much everything those of us paying attention have been saying for a while:

2013: Really good plasmas
2014: Similar plasmas
2015: Almost certainly the last year you can even buy a plasma
post #5676 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Here we go. This is where I knew the conclusions would be prematurely drawn and what was said will be misquoted or worse: partially quoted, and then endlessly parroted around forums and the water cooler. Did you read the article?

Yes side ways! Relax this is not the end of the world
post #5677 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Well, given that there is next to nothing with IGZO in production globally and LG has none of it and tried to jump straight to 55" IGZO backbones, we shouldn't be surprised they did so in a relatively crude manner.
I'm sure it'll mature as a tech; but it's off to a really, really slow start.

IGZO should be first and foremost seen in mobiles due to its proclaimed enormous advantages in this segment. Not being visible in mobiles yet makes IGZO another suspicious tech: tons of hype, no real stuff.
post #5678 of 9438
SID 2013 May 19-24. Vancouver Convention Centre, Vancouver, Canada

http://www.displayweek.org/Program/OLEDTV.aspx

Session 21: OLED TV (Active-Matrix Devices/OLEDs)
21.1: Invited Paper: Technological Progress and Commercialization of AMOLED TV
Chang-Ho Oh, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea
21.2: Distinguished Paper: A 55-in. AMOLED TV Using InGaZnO TFTs Using WRGB Pixel Design
Woo-Jin Nam, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea
21.3: A 65-in. Amorphous-Oxide-TFT AMOLED TV Using Side-by-Side and Fine-Metal-Mask Technology
Jen-Yu Lee, AU Optronics Corp., Hsinchu, Taiwan
21.4L: Late-News Paper: : Recent Developments in Carbon-Nananotube-Enabled Vertical Organic Light-Emitting Transistors for OLED Displays
Mitchell McCarthy, nVerPix, LLC, and University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Session 27: OLED Displays I (OLEDs)
27.1: A 13.3-in. CAAC-IGZO-FET OLED Display with Narrow Driver Area Using a Highly Efficient Deep-Blue Device
Tsunenori Suzuki, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd., Atsugi, Japan
post #5679 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

SID 2013 May 19-24. Vancouver Convention Centre, Vancouver, Canada

http://www.displayweek.org/Program/OLEDTV.aspx

Session 21: OLED TV (Active-Matrix Devices/OLEDs)
21.1: Invited Paper: Technological Progress and Commercialization of AMOLED TV
Chang-Ho Oh, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea
21.2: Distinguished Paper: A 55-in. AMOLED TV Using InGaZnO TFTs Using WRGB Pixel Design
Woo-Jin Nam, LG Display Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea
21.3: A 65-in. Amorphous-Oxide-TFT AMOLED TV Using Side-by-Side and Fine-Metal-Mask Technology
Jen-Yu Lee, AU Optronics Corp., Hsinchu, Taiwan
21.4L: Late-News Paper: : Recent Developments in Carbon-Nananotube-Enabled Vertical Organic Light-Emitting Transistors for OLED Displays
Mitchell McCarthy, nVerPix, LLC, and University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Session 27: OLED Displays I (OLEDs)
27.1: A 13.3-in. CAAC-IGZO-FET OLED Display with Narrow Driver Area Using a Highly Efficient Deep-Blue Device
Tsunenori Suzuki, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd., Atsugi, Japan

Looks like a lot of good info. OK, who's going to go and report back?
post #5680 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

IGZO should be first and foremost seen in mobiles due to its proclaimed enormous advantages in this segment. Not being visible in mobiles yet makes IGZO another suspicious tech: tons of hype, no real stuff.

Or it's hard to ramp up production, but everyone is absolutely committed to doing so anyway.
post #5681 of 9438
These SID presentations have been going on since 2002 or so. I think there has been very little momentum, actually. I'm not especially persuaded that OLED development is occurring any faster than LCD development did, even though it leverages off of it in some very major ways. The first monochrome TFT LCDs were a product of the early 1990s. By the early 2000s, we had full on TVs using full-color TFT LCDs. The first monochrome OLEDs are now more than a decade old and we've had phone-sized OLEDs for at least 3 years. In spite of that, we've actually have virtually no progress of any kind beyond it. Two "freak" TVs at astronomical prices that sold thousands of units total and left the market (neither bigger than 15") and that's it. Not even a volume tablet at 7".

I'm not suggesting it's no progress at all, but it's not very much progress. And in 2013 -- a year after the world's largest TV maker had promised to put 55" TVs on the market -- they have more or less announced a plan to switch technology completely to commercialize OLED TV because their smartphone technology simply cannot be scaled to TV sizes. In the meantime, "printable" OLED technology has been talked about since at least 2001-02 and is now being promised for commercialized in 2015. I mean, look, if that happens that's great. If it doesn't lead to a sub-$3000 TV, it's irrelevant even if it exists.
post #5682 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Or it's hard to ramp up production, but everyone is absolutely committed to doing so anyway.

IGZO better has no ramping problem when traditional mobile LCDs smoothly made it to 2K. IGZO should
be the star of the show in 2K mobile.

Some light in the tunnel is that 4K@32" IGZO monitor by Sharp made it to real product though it is a niche
in a niche.
post #5683 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

In the meantime, "printable" OLED technology has been talked about since at least 2001-02 and is now being promised for commercialized in 2015. I mean, look, if that happens that's great. If it doesn't lead to a sub-$3000 TV, it's irrelevant even if it exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post

The major manufacturers all have a goal of having the materials and technology for solution processing (be that DuPont or another method) around 2015. Now, that is a goal and not at all a promised delivery date. It is also a goal for technology not for products in the market. As we know, it will then require a bit of time to build up manufacturing lines. Vapor deposition is it for products for the next few years.

If you saw "printable" OLED being promised for commercialization in 2015 I'd be curious to see where you saw that. If you got that from my post I tried to be pretty clear that I didn't think commercialization would happen then but the hope was for the technology to be developed by then. Commercialization would then require production lines to be built. That might be 2017 or so if all goes well. Anything is possible though.

Printable OLED will offer faster production throughput and lower material usage resulting in lower costs but the lifetimes will not be as good as vapor deposition. At least that's the state of it for now. The end result would likely be the mass market will be printed and the premium market will still be vapor deposition. If it all works well, because the investment cost is lower and the equipment makers aren't tied so closely to Samsung/LG, then the DuPont's and others of the world will be selling their printing equipment not just to Samsung and LG but also to Sharp, Japan Display, ChiMei, BOE, AUO and every other display manufacturer. There won't be two companies converting 5 production lines to OLED but there will be 10 companies converting 1 or 2 lines to OLED. The printed OLEDs should easily be less expensive than LCD. The premium market would likely still be Samsung, LG, and an AUO/Sony combination with that market priced comparably to premium LCD. That is quite a few years from now though and a lot can happen to change that.
post #5684 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

In the meantime, "printable" OLED technology has been talked about since at least 2001-02 and is now being promised for commercialized in 2015. I mean, look, if that happens that's great. If it doesn't lead to a sub-$3000 TV, it's irrelevant even if it exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post

The major manufacturers all have a goal of having the materials and technology for solution processing (be that DuPont or another method) around 2015. Now, that is a goal and not at all a promised delivery date. It is also a goal for technology not for products in the market. As we know, it will then require a bit of time to build up manufacturing lines. Vapor deposition is it for products for the next few years.

If you saw "printable" OLED being promised for commercialization in 2015 I'd be curious to see where you saw that. If you got that from my post I tried to be pretty clear that I didn't think commercialization would happen then but the hope was for the technology to be developed by then. Commercialization would then require production lines to be built. That might be 2017 or so if all goes well. Anything is possible though.

Printable OLED will offer faster production throughput and lower material usage resulting in lower costs but the lifetimes will not be as good as vapor deposition. At least that's the state of it for now. The end result would likely be the mass market will be printed and the premium market will still be vapor deposition. If it all works well, because the investment cost is lower and the equipment makers aren't tied so closely to Samsung/LG, then the DuPont's and others of the world will be selling their printing equipment not just to Samsung and LG but also to Sharp, Japan Display, ChiMei, BOE, AUO and every other display manufacturer. There won't be two companies converting 5 production lines to OLED but there will be 10 companies converting 1 or 2 lines to OLED. The printed OLEDs should easily be less expensive than LCD. The premium market would likely still be Samsung, LG, and an AUO/Sony combination with that market priced comparably to premium LCD. That is quite a few years from now though and a lot can happen to change that.

Ok, going to step into the padded room for a sec. I wonder if the printable technology will usher in a "plug and play" approach. If the cost of the emitting part of the panel is cheap to produce, then is it conceivable that TV's will be made that allow new OLED prints to "slide in" or somesuch? Every 3 years you spend $50 and get a new OLED array.

It would require that the OLED printing progress to insanely high volume / low production cost, but seems to me that I can buy a replacement screen for my laptop cheaply (in relationship to the rest of the system). And make no mistake----the rest of the TV *is* a computer these days.
post #5685 of 9438
[BlackHelicopter style=conspiracy]ynotgoal, are you deleting posts as you go along? You're only at 28 posts at the time of this post and I would swear I saw you hover at 26 for a while. LOL......[/BlackHelicopter]
post #5686 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

[BlackHelicopter style=conspiracy]ynotgoal, are you deleting posts as you go along? You're only at 28 posts at the time of this post and I would swear I saw you hover at 26 for a while. LOL......[/BlackHelicopter]

No, I wasn't aware one could do that. Conspiracy?? It was never really my intent to post much here. I think one of my first few posts was in December when LG was getting ready to announce availability of the TVs so 25 or so posts in 4 months would be a lot for me here. Just thought there were a few things some of you might be interested in as OLEDs move into TV production and I get good info from some of you on your thoughts on the TVs.
post #5687 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post


If you saw "printable" OLED being promised for commercialization in 2015 I'd be curious to see where you saw that. If you got that from my post I tried to be pretty clear that I didn't think commercialization would happen then but the hope was for the technology to be developed by then. Commercialization would then require production lines to be built. That might be 2017 or so if all goes well. Anything is possible though.

I was more speculating on Panasonic's plans based on them basically abandoning plasma, which they had been selling millions of, for nothing unless they get OLED running. And it seems their OLED plan revolves around printables. (Yes, other people, I am aware of their LCD business, which is entirely irrelevant. But I am aware of it, thanks.)
Quote:
Printable OLED will offer faster production throughput and lower material usage resulting in lower costs but the lifetimes will not be as good as vapor deposition. At least that's the state of it for now. The end result would likely be the mass market will be printed and the premium market will still be vapor deposition. If it all works well, because the investment cost is lower and the equipment makers aren't tied so closely to Samsung/LG, then the DuPont's and others of the world will be selling their printing equipment not just to Samsung and LG but also to Sharp, Japan Display, ChiMei, BOE, AUO and every other display manufacturer. There won't be two companies converting 5 production lines to OLED but there will be 10 companies converting 1 or 2 lines to OLED. The printed OLEDs should easily be less expensive than LCD. The premium market would likely still be Samsung, LG, and an AUO/Sony combination with that market priced comparably to premium LCD. That is quite a few years from now though and a lot can happen to change that.

What's your timetable for "cheaper than LCD"? I'm not clear on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Ok, going to step into the padded room for a sec. I wonder if the printable technology will usher in a "plug and play" approach. If the cost of the emitting part of the panel is cheap to produce, then is it conceivable that TV's will be made that allow new OLED prints to "slide in" or somesuch? Every 3 years you spend $50 and get a new OLED array.

That's not going to happen.
Quote:
post #5688 of 9438
Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?
post #5689 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?

Why? The gaps include horizontal distances, and the filters are reversed per scanline. There'd be nothing to gain from that. Unless.........they're trying to increase the vertical-off-angle 3D viewing by the vertical distances? IIRC, the concern with passive is having the pixels as close to the filter as possible so that vertically you don't acidentally view the wrong scanline partially through the wrong filter. That's crosstalk.

I'm personally wondering two things:
  1. Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner smile.gif) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.
  2. and/or Maybe they realized that it's a sharper image when the subs are dramatically closer to increase sharpness. This would keep a sub from pixel 1 from appearing as part of pixel 2. (?)

It's the only things I can imagine off the top of my head.
post #5690 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?

No, that has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm personally wondering two things:
  1. Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner smile.gif) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.
  2. and/or Maybe they realized that it's a sharper image when the subs are dramatically closer to increase sharpness. This would keep a sub from pixel 1 from appearing as part of pixel 2. (?)

It's the only things I can imagine off the top of my head.

OMG, there are no OLED sub-pixels. How many times do we have to discuss this? No, really, there are no OLED sub pixels.

The way the LG works is that there is one giant OLED pixel made by layering red, green, and blue OLED material on top of one another. Portions of that one giant pixel are illuminated by exciting small chunks of it using transistors to pass current through it which causes a small portion of the one giant pixel to get excited.

The sub pixels are solely made using the color filters. The sharp edges come from the color filters only. Without them, the sub pixels would be somewhat amorphously edged. LCD works differently in that it uses an "eggcrate" type grid to segregate the LC material for each sub-pixel while also having color filters. But the sharp edge is from the grid, which serves to effectively create discrete pixels out of a a single layer of LC. In the LG OLED design, there are no sub-pixels whatsoever. There are transistors used to approximately excite the area for each sub-pixel and then the color filter is used to rigidly define it. It's for that reason that some border was necessary (you get a sharp edge via the dark border). But why the vertical inter-pixel spacing is so large remains at best a partially answered question.
post #5691 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Regarding the gaps and fill-factor of those macro shots - couldn't some of this be attributed to the fact that LG uses passive 3D on these panels?

No, that has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm personally wondering two things:
  1. Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner smile.gif) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.
  2. and/or Maybe they realized that it's a sharper image when the subs are dramatically closer to increase sharpness. This would keep a sub from pixel 1 from appearing as part of pixel 2. (?)

It's the only things I can imagine off the top of my head.

OMG, there are no OLED sub-pixels. How many times do we have to discuss this? No, really, there are no OLED sub pixels.

The way the LG works is that there is one giant OLED pixel made by layering red, green, and blue OLED material on top of one another. Portions of that one giant pixel are illuminated by exciting small chunks of it using transistors to pass current through it which causes a small portion of the one giant pixel to get excited.

The sub pixels are solely made using the color filters. The sharp edges come from the color filters only. Without them, the sub pixels would be somewhat amorphously edged. LCD works differently in that it uses an "eggcrate" type grid to segregate the LC material for each sub-pixel while also having color filters. But the sharp edge is from the grid, which serves to effectively create discrete pixels out of a a single layer of LC. In the LG OLED design, there are no sub-pixels whatsoever. There are transistors used to approximately excite the area for each sub-pixel and then the color filter is used to rigidly define it. It's for that reason that some border was necessary (you get a sharp edge via the dark border). But why the vertical inter-pixel spacing is so large remains at best a partially answered question.


There are times where you draw distinctions with a venom I just can't understand. And even with that distinction in place, it doesn't speak for or against my speculations at all. Not the sharpness, not the spacing, none of it.
post #5692 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

There are times where you draw distinctions with a venom I just can't understand.

There are times I explain something for the 1000th time and I flat out can't believe we are going back to the part where a fundamentally wrong description appears in this thread.
Quote:
And even with that distinction in place, it doesn't speak for or against my speculations at all. Not the sharpness, not the spacing, none of it.

It absolutely does, since your understanding of the way the pixels work is completely in error. There is no "pixel spacing" because there are no pixels.

The appearance of pixels exists solely from color-filter patterning.
post #5693 of 9438
You are certainly going to need some spacing between the anodes of the subpixels (or cathodes, I don't know if they even use common anode, common cathode or neither in oled displays). So I don't really see anything wrong with referring to that as a gap, or referring to the individual colors as sub-pixels whether generated by color filters or not.
post #5694 of 9438
I have no idea if this can be applied to TVs or if it's limited to OLED lighting, but techies might find it interesting nevertheless.

Color of OLEDs can now at last be predicted thanks to new modeling technique

Source: phys.org

OLEDs – thin, light-emitting surfaces – are regarded as the light sources of the future. White OLEDs consist of stacked, ultra-thin layers, each emitting its own light color, all together resulting in white light. Up to now it has been impossible to predict the exact light color produced by a white OLED; manufacturers had to rely on trial and error. Researchers at Eindhoven University of Technology, Philips Research, Dresden University of Technology and other institutes have now developed a method that allows the color of light produced by a specific OLED design to be calculated with high precision. They did this by modeling the complex processes in OLEDs on a molecular scale. This technique will allow manufacturers to greatly improve their OLED design processes and reduce the cost. At the same time the energy efficiency and lifetime of OLEDs can be increased.
post #5695 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

There are times where you draw distinctions with a venom I just can't understand.

There are times I explain something for the 1000th time and I flat out can't believe we are going back to the part where a fundamentally wrong description appears in this thread.
Quote:
And even with that distinction in place, it doesn't speak for or against my speculations at all. Not the sharpness, not the spacing, none of it.

It absolutely does, since your understanding of the way the pixels work is completely in error. There is no "pixel spacing" because there are no pixels.


The appearance of pixels exists solely from color-filter patterning.

I've always known there were color filters employed here.

And the appearance of pixels, are pixels. Pixel means picture element. But Ok. let's go with the distinction you are making anyway and apply it to what I was saying:Let's take my first quote of this:
Quote:
Maybe the device and technology that deposits the OLED sub-pixels does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner smile.gif) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.

And change it this way with your distinctions honored (in red):
Quote:
Maybe the device and technology that deposits the things that look like OLED sub-pixels but that are really just parts of the OLED with a separate filter on it does so in a fixed distance way regardless of how big the panel is. That is, the tight grouping allows for smaller panels, and for larger panels they just space them further apart (and hopefully increase their brightness) (?) That allows them to have the thing requiring the tightest spacing (the sub pixel putter-onner smile.gif) to be perfected, and the same regardless of panel.

Besides, I'm not sure what on earth you would call those filters if not sub-pixels. They are color components of the picture element itself. What I'm saying is that the group of 4 things (I couldn't care less what they truly are or how they're made) is maybe always of a certain size: the whole pixel is always the same physical WxH size, and they space those apart at larger intervals for larger panels.

Here's the original picture I ever saw about the LG method of OLED:. It's from a possibly naive and early CNET article where the guy specifically refers to LG's sub-pixels. If those sub-pixels are actually just circuitry to different parts of a single big OLED, what could it matter? I've known there were filters involved for a long time.

As far as my sharpness comment, the sharpness I'm referring to has nothing to do with the defined edges of each of those filters----even if as amorphous as a puddle of spit it still applies. I'm saying that keeping the grouping together with clear distances between each complete pixel will keep one sub-pixel (or whatever you feel comfortable calling it) from appearing as part of a neighboring pixel. I was speculating that this will aid in the pixel definitions, or "sharpness" as I put it.

Seriously, there should never have to be a clarification made like this.
Edited by tgm1024 - 4/15/13 at 6:27pm
post #5696 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstephen View Post

You are certainly going to need some spacing between the anodes of the subpixels (or cathodes, I don't know if they even use common anode, common cathode or neither in oled displays). So I don't really see anything wrong with referring to that as a gap, or referring to the individual colors as sub-pixels whether generated by color filters or not.

Well, it's a bit of a mystery to me what he's all worked up about here.

And as I pointed out: a pixel is a picture element. The RGBW components of that are sub-pixels. No?

It's not as though I was saying that the LG mechanism was done by employing sub pixels without filters.
Edited by tgm1024 - 4/15/13 at 6:35pm
post #5697 of 9438
I'm not worked up about anything.

As to sstephen's remarks, I agree there is a need for some amount of space for electrodes. Except not much space. Look at the LCD design of Sharp's linked above. You simply don't need much space to handle that, yet LG is taking about 1/3 of the pixel space -- vertically -- for electrodes and whatever else. It's also taking substantial horizontal space to separate out the red, green, blue and white. I believe that's for edge definition, specifically related to the fact that you'd have bleedthrough otherwise since there is only one giant OLED layer, which is completely oblivious to whatever semantic definitions some of you wish to keep applying to it.

The closest technological precursor to how this works is probably JVC (et al.) with LCOS. There, only a single, pixel-grid-less LC layer existed. And a small portion of it was twisted by transistor excitation beneath it. The result was a tremendous fill factor (well, it still is) but a pretty poor edge definition. Now, that lack of edging makes little difference on the LCOS -- you need magnification to even notice this -- but it's there.

The color filters in this case are clearly cut to provide edge definition not only between pixels, but between sub-pixels. And the amount of horizontal space seems reasonable. The vertical space seems excessive, however, and is almost certainly due to this being first-generation technology. The amount of light output being lost to all that dead space alone is horrid, never mind the poor visual fill factor.
post #5698 of 9438
Some news from LG:


LG sells 200 OLED TVs in three months in Korea; predicts "substantial numbers" in 2013

Source: whathifi.com

LG has confirmed it has sold 200 OLED TVs since the company’s first 55in OLED TV went on sale in Korea.

The LG 55EM970V OLED TV (above) opened for pre-orders in Korea in January before going on sale in February.

Originally unveiled at CES in 2012, the LG OLED TV is also now available for pre-order in the UK, having gone on sale at the start of March in Harrods, London for £10,000.

Around 100 sets were reported to have been pre-ordered after six weeks in Korea, and LG’s director of home entertainment communications Hugo Shin confirmed at a briefing at LG HQ in Seoul today that sales have hit 200.

Shin said LG expects to sell “substantial numbers” of OLED and 4K Ultra HD TVs over the next 24 months, despite these initial slow sales.

Clearly very expensive now, Shin believes OLED TVs could be a similar price to existing high-end LED screen in as little as two or three years.

LG believes OLED TV offers particular performance improvements in terms of colours, contrast and viewing angle, plus at just 4mm thin, holds plenty of aesthetic appeal, too.

As well as this 55in flatscreen OLED TV, LG is continuing to develop curved OLED TVs, as first revealed at CES 2013.

Bringing the cinema feel to TV screens, based on the curved screen of IMAX cinemas, LG says curved OLED TVs will deliver a more immersive experience as well as delivering the optimum viewing distance to every part of the screen.

As for plasma sets, LG says it will keep making PDP TVs as long as there is consumer demand for them, but views them as a budget offering.
post #5699 of 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson View Post

Bringing the cinema feel to TV screens, based on the curved screen of IMAX cinemas,

.....which I can't freaking stand.....

Quote:
...LG says curved OLED TVs will deliver a more immersive experience as well as delivering the optimum viewing distance to every part of the screen.

It's possible, and maybe I'm alone on this one but I can't see these things mounted on walls, and isn't the public increasingly doing just that as these things get bigger? Or maybe this is just the new look on the wall?
post #5700 of 9438
The curved screen has been around for a while for front projection home theaters. Google projector curved screen to get some examples. They are IMO more cinematic, but not something I'd want to watch regular TV on (or on a large screen at all).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread