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 194

post #5791 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

If BMW makes such good cars, then how come it doesn't sell great mobile phones, too? That is what we call a non sequitir and while it's more outrageous than the one you keep repeating, irkuck, it's not terribly so.Just because LG's technology is good, it doesn't follow that their ability to scale that up to make mobile phone displays while also trying to scale it up to make television displays is so easy to do. This is especially true when their most important mobile-phone (and tablet) display customer has been demanded LCD screens. And since the OLED TV ramp has been going on for 2 years now, during which time that customer has demanded hundreds of millions of tablet and phone screens. While I'm sure LG would like to tackle mobile and TV at the same time, it's just not trivial to do everything at once. I look forward to them moving into mobile. But I look equally forward to a non-Sharp company offering an IGZO LCD on mobile, too.

Customers demanded LCD since there were no (competitive) OLED offerings. In mobile displays there is money and volumes, TV is struggling. LG either treats OLED TV as giant PR and/or disregards economics. Samsung at least is going logical way: mobile OLED first. So the LG is not the BMW case: it is the same OLED tech which instead of scaling up the size they should scale down, otherwise it is almost unliekly they will get economics right.
post #5792 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Customers demanded LCD since there were no (competitive) OLED offerings. In mobile displays there is money and volumes, TV is struggling. LG either treats OLED TV as giant PR and/or disregards economics. Samsung at least is going logical way: mobile OLED first. So the LG is not the BMW case: it is the same OLED tech which instead of scaling up the size they should scale down, otherwise it is almost unliekly they will get economics right.

How many televisions with >300ppi and running on battery power do you own?

Different requirements mean different technologies.
post #5793 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

How many televisions with >300ppi and running on battery power do you own?
Different requirements mean different technologies.

Sounds absurd: the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same. Moreover, OLED pixels for 5" should be even easier to make than for 55". On top of this, moving 10 or 20 mln 5" OLED displays to consumers is easy (Samsung will move at least 50 mln AMOLEDs this year). Instead LG is claiming selling not 100 but as much as 200 55" OLEDs. What LG and Samsung are doing in big OLEDs is like a pissing contest among oldboys with overgrown prostates.
post #5794 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Sounds absurd: the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same.

"Sounds absurd"? Just awesome.

I guess I'll step out of the way now and let you continue to rant on subjects you know nothing about.
post #5795 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

How many televisions with >300ppi and running on battery power do you own?
Different requirements mean different technologies.

Sounds absurd: the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same.

Did you mean

"What slacker just said sounds absurd because the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same."

or

"Saying the technology for 5" and 55" OLED is the same only sounds absurd" (but isn't according to you)

(?) I know in both cases you believe they are the same technological hurdles, but which way did you mean?
post #5796 of 9481
I don't know what irkuck means, exactly, tgm, but he seems convinced by the following:

1) LG's technology is not easier to make than Samsungs.

2) We can prove this because they didn't make mobile.

3) Mobile is a real market and LG obviously knows this and since they didn't aggressively pursue mobile, they can't really build their OLED displays at all, so the whole thing is a smokescreen.

What this ignores is:

a) Corporations are fallible

b) LG felt its technology would give it a leg up in televisions that Samsung would have a hard time catching up on

c) LG Display is making plenty of money in mobile already selling to Apple, itself, and others

d) LG could easily have overestimated its ability to ship TVs

None of this disproves that LG's method for making TVs isn't significantly better than Samsung's. In fact, there is little evidence that Samsung is actually pursuing volume mfg. of OLED TVs using its method at all whereas there is evidence that Samsung and LG are both pursuing the RGBW method (the latter most especially).

Further, there is an important consideration regarding mobile that irkuck simply chooses to ignore.

Specifically, power consumption is nearly everything on mobile. The existing OLED displays to date have not fared especially well on that (the newest one I believe is better). They have stayed with LCD generally, but actually consume more power on full-screen/near full-screen illuminations. The RGBW design might simply not perform well on power usage at 4-5" diagonally. If it's 20-40% worse than Samsung's OLED, which is worse than the best LTPS LCDs, that might not be good enough to be viable. Do I know this to be the case? No I don't, but it's certainly possible LG does.
post #5797 of 9481
Correcting distortions to my point of view:

1) - Never claimed this: LG tech should be easier to make than Samsung
2) ,3) - I am buying your argument that LG OLED might not have favorable power consumption which is critical for mobile and tolerable for TV. However, this would be bad for the future of LG OLED. TV busines is usually bleeding and really hard to make any profits. Profits and volumes are in mobile. From this point of view Samsung AMOLED looks better since they have full production running, the latest S4 display is 1080p and even it is pentile there is no visual effect of it. Thus, if there is no mobile OLED from LG coming soon, its OLED is doomed business-wise since price, volumes and scope of TV offering would make it too-small niche product.
post #5798 of 9481
Why Is LGE Launching Curved A OLED TV?

Source: displaysearch blog.

This week LGE announced that it will beigin taking orders for a curved OLED TV (the 55EA9800), with shipments planned to start in June. The price was set at 15 million Won ($13,550), a 4 million Won premium on the 55” OLED TV (55EM9700) it started selling in January for 11 million Won ($10,330). Even though there is no other competitor in the OLED TV market and LG’s existing OLED production is not yet stable and sales of OLED TVs are still very small, LGE seems to be in a hurry to announce another OLED TV product.

Standard OLED TV is not positioned well in the market, and Ultra HD (4Kx2K) LCD TVs are clearly a competitive threat. With an inventory overhang of old models from last year, launches of new models are somewhat delayed. Since the timing doesn’t look ideal, and since no case has been made for the benefits of a curved TV, the question is why is LGE moving forward with curved OLED TV at this time? It may be a reflection of longer-term strategic concerns at LGE.

First, there are still plenty of rumors about Samsung’s OLED TV. Some assert that Samsung cannot launch its OLED TV this year, while others say that Samsung will adopt white OLED (following LGE’s technology) because RGB OLED suffers from very poor manufacturing yields. Another viewpoint is that as TV market leader, Samsung would take the tactical decision not to launch a copycat OLED TV even if RGB OLED TV was ready to mass produce. Despite this, it is likely that LGE is worried about Samsung’s response in OLED TV and may be trying to occupy any potential territory available to its rival.

Second, production yield is still a headache for LGE. OLED TV shipments have been delayed in Korea, the first market, and other regions are also facing delayed launch and shipments, most notably the U.S. So, rather than increasing volumes, a value increase is better for such scarce quantities. If the shipment target is also June, LGE may be buying itself more time to improve manufacturing processes.

Third, like Sony, LGE is planning to launch 55” and 65” UHD TVs, following the launch at 84”. LGE may find it difficult to differentiate a hugely expensive flat OLED TV from a relatively cheap UHD TV. A curved OLED TV (with a higher price) would clearly be different than a simple LCD UHD TV. No TV has ever been produced in a concave design, as it requires some sort of flexible display.

OLED still faces the challenge of hitting LCD’s fast-moving target. LGE has not given up on thinking of new ways to compete.
post #5799 of 9481
^10/10 analysis.
post #5800 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Correcting distortions to my point of view:

1) - Never claimed this: LG tech should be easier to make than Samsung
2) ,3) - I am buying your argument that LG OLED might not have favorable power consumption which is critical for mobile and tolerable for TV. However, this would be bad for the future of LG OLED. TV busines is usually bleeding and really hard to make any profits. Profits and volumes are in mobile. From this point of view Samsung AMOLED looks better since they have full production running, the latest S4 display is 1080p and even it is pentile there is no visual effect of it. Thus, if there is no mobile OLED from LG coming soon, its OLED is doomed business-wise since price, volumes and scope of TV offering would make it too-small niche product.

At the risk of exceeding my posting quota for the week and having a mostly non-TV post ..

Power consumption differences between RGB and WRGB depends on the content as shown here for two reasons. It is easy to see that white needs to be lit up if there is any color which makes WRGB consume more power, especially notable for darker or single colored areas. OTOH, and I know the chemistry of it is difficult, but WRGB is a more efficient architecture.

LG produced some small sized OLEDs a few years ago but Apple preferred to stick with LCD at the time so they stopped making them. LG is now re-starting their small OLED program with the first product with an unbreakable OLED to be on the market in q4. LG's small OLEDs are RGB.
post #5801 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

I dont want to read too much into the word "partially". It could be referring to the fact that Sumitomo/CDT is using a phosphorescent red or it could just be referring to Panasonic's own contributions.

With respect to blue, I think the key number is the 13,000 hour half life. They definitely have some work to do before they can commercialize it, but the fact that they seem to be making progress is a good sign.

I guess I was looking at the 20,000 hour lifetime stats. I'm not sure what the blue fluorescent lifetime is but its not great either. Plus, the polymer red and green efficiency numbers are pretty good and they don't use iridium. My concern is 2017 isn't that far off if this is a credible option for TVs. I found some info on their printing technology and it's quite a bit more complicated than I thought. There is one step which still requires a vacuum chamber and another point where they have to let it sit for an hour for materials to dry. Plus they need an oxide backplane. It does sound like they could get some small quantity out of their Himeji pilot line next year though.
post #5802 of 9481
Let's not lose sight that good times are a'coming! smile.gif
post #5803 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Correcting distortions to my point of view:

1) - Never claimed this: LG tech should be easier to make than Samsung
2) ,3) - I am buying your argument that LG OLED might not have favorable power consumption which is critical for mobile and tolerable for TV. However, this would be bad for the future of LG OLED. TV busines is usually bleeding and really hard to make any profits. Profits and volumes are in mobile. From this point of view Samsung AMOLED looks better since they have full production running, the latest S4 display is 1080p and even it is pentile there is no visual effect of it. Thus, if there is no mobile OLED from LG coming soon, its OLED is doomed business-wise since price, volumes and scope of TV offering would make it too-small niche product.

I did write your view "seemed" to include those things. You have clarified.

With respect to profits, we'll just agree to disagree. There is volume in mobile. Whether there is profit is pretty impossible to say. Samsung sells nearly all its AMOLED product to Samsung. It's easy enough to make that look profitable on both ends, but is it? Is it more profitable than selling LCDs in mobile? Are you feeling confident about that?

Today, TV is profitable for few outside of Samsung and LG. The key commonality is making both panels and finished goods in huge quantity. It's not what the underlying tech is. (And before we go off on Panasonic and plasma let's just point out that market was / is declining and Panasonic alone couldn't fix that, especially with the yen where it was the past 3 years. Had Abenomics come in 2010, who knows?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post

At the risk of exceeding my posting quota for the week and having a mostly non-TV post ..

Power consumption differences between RGB and WRGB depends on the content as shown here for two reasons. It is easy to see that white needs to be lit up if there is any color which makes WRGB consume more power, especially notable for darker or single colored areas. OTOH, and I know the chemistry of it is difficult, but WRGB is a more efficient architecture.

LG produced some small sized OLEDs a few years ago but Apple preferred to stick with LCD at the time so they stopped making them. LG is now re-starting their small OLED program with the first product with an unbreakable OLED to be on the market in q4. LG's small OLEDs are RGB.

The larger point on power I was making was that Apple, for example, probably rejected "worse than LCD at any reasonable number of points on the curve". It's certainly possible that WRGB will ultimately outperform LTPS LCD on enough of the relevant portion of the power curve to be a contender on mobile. And that would likely appeal to Apple, although the challenge is Apple won't buy a screen that only one company can build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post

I guess I was looking at the 20,000 hour lifetime stats. I'm not sure what the blue fluorescent lifetime is but its not great either. Plus, the polymer red and green efficiency numbers are pretty good and they don't use iridium. My concern is 2017 isn't that far off if this is a credible option for TVs. I found some info on their printing technology and it's quite a bit more complicated than I thought. There is one step which still requires a vacuum chamber and another point where they have to let it sit for an hour for materials to dry. Plus they need an oxide backplane. It does sound like they could get some small quantity out of their Himeji pilot line next year though.

The reality is that "printable" OLED is no panacea that makes production instantly easier. That much is crystal clear if you watch the DuPont presentation. I think it's clear that something like SMS-based FMM mfg. is not going to be used to mass produce TVs. But beyond that, Sony/Panasonic/AUO are obsessed with printing in the short run because they don't have WRGB a la LG. In fact, I wonder if LG's technology combined with wide-area printing -- to remove the vapor step eventually -- becomes something ridiculously formidable. It will still be far less complex than what Sony and Panasonic's design requires and ought to be far more forgiving. And if they can get rid of the 3-stage vapor depo, this should ultimately scale ridiculously well. The caveat being that, of course, it requires making IGZO backplanes as easily as a-Si ones are made today. I still believe that's a given, but until it happens...
post #5804 of 9481
I doubt LG's current WRGB tech would work in mobile at all. If you look at the FCC filing they made last year, it shows a peak power consumption of 5.2A/520W. eek.gif That's in Plasma territory and definitely not something you can stick in a phone.

Test Report Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=807396&fcc_id='BEJ55EM9700UA

Also, since DisplaySearch now confirmed that shipments have been delayed in Korea, it seems that this tech doesn't work too well in non-mobile applications either.
post #5805 of 9481
Ok flexible OLED that rolls up and are 12feet wide in 8K definition with 32bit ability is what I want! Soon in the next 20 years?
post #5806 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

I doubt LG's current WRGB tech would work in mobile at all. If you look at the FCC filing they made last year, it shows a peak power consumption of 5.2A/520W. eek.gif That's in Plasma territory and definitely not something you can stick in a phone.

That test report is listing a power consumption specific to the 55EM9700, not to the technology in general. Of COURSE a 55" panel is going to pull a lot of power. It says nothing at all either way about whether or not their WRGB tech would work in a phone.
post #5807 of 9481
It is not evident at present that OLED will necessarily provide better PQ than advanced LCD. This is illustrated by comparison between mobile 2K displays in S4 and HTC One: As we pointed out in our Samsung Galaxy S4 review, the screen is undeniably one of the handset's selling points. Due to its pixel density of 441 pixels per inch (ppi), it has great image quality, and the handset also boasts excellent viewing angles and colour reproduction. Unsurprisingly, the HTC One's display is also great. With a pixel density of 469ppi and thanks to HTC's Super LCD technology, the screen on the HTC One is one of the sharpest and brightest we've had the pleasure of using, and it also offers deep blacks and vibrant colours.Having used the two smartphones side by side, we have to say that the HTC One wins again. Thanks to its higher brightness level, we found that the screen on the HTC One was much more legible outdoors than the screen on the Samsung Galaxy S4, with its AMOLED screen often proving too dim outdoors. We also preferred video playback on the HTC One due to its blacker blacks, although this might not be the same for everyone. Winner: HTC One

This of course is not the same as comparing TV displays but if somebody would dare to make high-end LCD with dense local dimming that could be hard for OLED.
post #5808 of 9481
I hate to break this to you, but they dont use the same technology for the HTC One LCD as they do for television LCD's. Google LTPS versus a-si.
post #5809 of 9481
LG officials say that LG Display aims to enter the small-sized OLED market with their new flexible OLED panels in 2013.

LG also confirmed that the first flexible OLEDs will not really be flexible or bendable eek.gif

http://www.oled-info.com/news
post #5810 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

I hate to break this to you, but they dont use the same technology for the HTC One LCD as they do for television LCD's. Google LTPS versus a-si.

I think he knows this.... but didn't want to let it get in the way of some OLED bashing.

I also think it's fair to say that IGZO backplane, large-format LCD TVs with local dimming could probably match OLED for 99% of consumers at 50% of the price. That still does represent a TV adoption threat of sorts, albeit a small one as no one seems likely to build locally dimmed LCD TVs..
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

LG officials say that LG Display aims to enter the small-sized OLED market with their new flexible OLED panels in 2013.

LG also confirmed that the first flexible OLEDs will not really be flexible or bendable eek.gif

http://www.oled-info.com/news

I've explained for a couple of years here that "flexible" TVs would neither be flexible as people think of it nor bendable (as that's esentially pointless). The short-term technological goal is unbreakability. I realize not everyone has been reading here for years and there is no problem with you reiterating their info, I just raise the point that some of us have done a pretty good job understanding the trends in progress. If you remove from the equation the part where I was completed duped by CES 2012 into believing TVs would ship last year and really remove that from everyone's calculus, I think you'll find this forum has done a good job of seeing the market unfold.
post #5811 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


I also think it's fair to say that IGZO backplane, large-format LCD TVs with local dimming could probably match OLED for 99% of consumers at 50% of the price.


Assuming that both televisions are using IGZO backplanes with identical yields on the substrates, what exactly is causing OLED's to be double the price of the LCD? The WRGB architecture should allow for fairly high yields. Are you expecting half the throughput using the same sized fab?
post #5812 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I think he knows this.... but didn't want to let it get in the way of some OLED bashing. I also think it's fair to say that IGZO backplane, large-format LCD TVs with local dimming could probably match OLED for 99% of consumers at 50% of the price. That still does represent a TV adoption threat of sorts, albeit a small one as no one seems likely to build locally dimmed LCD TVs...

I am not bashing but turning attention of OLED-heaven dreamers that LCD has still significant potential which definitely makes LCD replacement unlikely and OLED future uncertain. Example of mobile just shows it. As I said, mobile is telling since this is the area where there is volume, progress and profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I've explained for a couple of years here that "flexible" TVs would neither be flexible as people think of it nor bendable (as that's esentially pointless). The short-term technological goal is unbreakability. I realize not everyone has been reading here for years and there is no problem with you reiterating their info, I just raise the point that some of us have done a pretty good job understanding the trends in progress. If you remove from the equation the part where I was completed duped by CES 2012 into believing TVs would ship last year and really remove that from everyone's calculus, I think you'll find this forum has done a good job of seeing the market unfold.

Bendable/foldable displays seem to be of limited use but curved displays are reasonable. Computer monitors are the area of immediate need for them, curved 110" 4K TV could be more attractive than flat for HT viewing. And finally, I guess any personal display, including mobile, might be kind of more eye-catching if just a bit of curvature is added to it but this would have to be tested. Ending with flat terror could be liberating smile.gif.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

Assuming that both televisions are using IGZO backplanes with identical yields on the substrates, what exactly is causing OLED's to be double the price of the LCD? The WRGB architecture should allow for fairly high yields. Are you expecting half the throughput using the same sized fab?

OLED subpixel is inherently more complicated than LCD. In the case of OLED one has complex light emission from sophisticated molecules. LCD is just changing orientation of molecules under electric field. Question is if the complexity can be managed to the point the technology will be economical.
post #5813 of 9481
Translation of irkuck: OLED ain't happening and we are doomed to LCD only that sucks!

The only reason for OLED posts is to avoid thinking about the nightmare world of LCD only.

If they are making less and less local dimming LCDs why think that they would start doing that with LARGE 4K LCDs? How much would that cost?

3D was a gimmick but even that is being phased out!

Face it people--other than the f8500 and the ZT60 we are looking at a video LCD only world that picture quality wise SUCKS!

And if you don't believe me then honestly answer this question: What YEAR will there be a 65-inch non LCD 4K set that costs less than $4,000?

Now answer this: when will ZT60s or their successors and f8500s and their successors cease being produced?

Now tell me how we aren't heading towards a LCD only world that sucks!

What I'm saying is so AWFUL that no videophile wants to face it!

Buy a ZT60 or a f8500 and watch it until it dies.

When it dies it will all be all over!
post #5814 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I've explained for a couple of years here that "flexible" TVs would neither be flexible as people think of it nor bendable (as that's esentially pointless). The short-term technological goal is unbreakability.


When things are fragile in nature, they are by definition harder to put together into a product (and ship, etc.) If flexible displays are 1000x more forgiving in this regard, then I would assume that the TVs would be cheaper and quicker to produce.
Edited by tgm1024 - 5/6/13 at 8:07pm
post #5815 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Translation of irkuck: OLED ain't happening and we are doomed to LCD only that sucks!
The only reason for OLED posts is to avoid thinking about the nightmare world of LCD only.
Hello? Your rambling posts are to avoid thinking, most posts here are about prospects of OLED technology. What I say is that LCD is fast moving target and OLED has huge problems in getting into real production not even speaking about economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

If they are making less and less local dimming LCDs why think that they would start doing that with LARGE 4K LCDs? How much would that cost?

Consumers decided LCD PQ is good enough, this is why local dimming dimmed out and edge-lit is ruling. OLED might still get some market share but its window of opportunity is closing.
post #5816 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

Assuming that both televisions are using IGZO backplanes with identical yields on the substrates, what exactly is causing OLED's to be double the price of the LCD? The WRGB architecture should allow for fairly high yields. Are you expecting half the throughput using the same sized fab?

I think I was referring to short-term pricing rather than long term (to be honest, I wrote it fairly quickly and I'm not 100% sure what I was getting at). That said, I do believe throughput will be significant lower at least for the next several years. Fabs are really, really good at making LCDs. It's also quite possible that "fairly high yields" will be 10-30% lower than what LCD gets. We don't know yet, but clearly LG is having at least some issues reliably vapor depo-ing the three layers of OLED material uniformly. And the process is slow.

All that said, slacker, I'm sure the cost-of-production gap will narrow over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I am not bashing but turning attention of OLED-heaven dreamers that LCD has still significant potential which definitely makes LCD replacement unlikely and OLED future uncertain. Example of mobile just shows it. As I said, mobile is telling since this is the area where there is volume, progress and profits.

We agree LCD still has tremendous potential. While we also agree mobile has huge volume and has made huge progress, I think you overestimate it's profits. I think you also make the mistake of conflating unit volume with "capital v" volume. The TV market is north of 200 million LCD TVs at this point. The amount of glass used on them is enough to make billions of mobile phones. The smartphone market is roughly 1/10 as big by area as the TV market, perhaps smaller.
Quote:
Bendable/foldable displays seem to be of limited use but curved displays are reasonable. Computer monitors are the area of immediate need for them, curved 110" 4K TV could be more attractive than flat for HT viewing. And finally, I guess any personal display, including mobile, might be kind of more eye-catching if just a bit of curvature is added to it but this would have to be tested. Ending with flat terror could be liberating smile.gif.

Your position as "serious observer" of technology trends is called into question when you deem curved TVs / screen valuable. Talk about a niche within a niche.

It is also worth noting that curved TVs are going to be significantly more complex to ship than flat ones. Logistics isn't costless. Who is paying for this? The tiny number of people that care.
Quote:
OLED subpixel is inherently more complicated than LCD. In the case of OLED one has complex light emission from sophisticated molecules. LCD is just changing orientation of molecules under electric field. Question is if the complexity can be managed to the point the technology will be economical.

Or one could argue, "LCD pixel is inherently more complicated since it requires a compartmentalized area for each one (the pixel grid) to hold a small amount of fluid. RGBW OLED, on the other hand, does not even need pixels on the "active" layer (the back and front layers are made the same as an LCD, so equally complex).
post #5817 of 9481
Irkurk, I think your statement that consumers have decided that LCD PQ is good enough hits the mail squarely on the head. Plasma may offer better PQ, OLED will also, full array offers better screen uniformity, LED offers slimmer displays, local dimming Full array is really a step up in PQ, and now local dimming edge lit is the new buzz word. The average consumer buys into all that gobbldygook. Hell, most of them still think that Samsung developed this awesome new technology called LED TV's. Decent picture at a decent price equals big profits. Throw out a new buzz word every couple of years and we'll buy into it.
post #5818 of 9481
Someone here or elsewhere was talking about how OLED not only offers tremendous potential for picture improvement, but also the "gimmicks" like thinness that have been used to sucker in so many consumers. So maybe it has a chance... smile.gif

(And I do also hope folks out there in consumer-land notice what Panasonic has accomplished with their recent plasmas...)
post #5819 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Hiller View Post

Someone here or elsewhere was talking about how OLED not only offers tremendous potential for picture improvement, but also the "gimmicks" like thinness that have been used to sucker in so many consumers. So maybe it has a chance... smile.gif

(And I do also hope folks out there in consumer-land notice what Panasonic has accomplished with their recent plasmas...)

....yeah, and by the time they do it'll be 2015.... smile.gif
post #5820 of 9481
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Irkurk, I think your statement that consumers have decided that LCD PQ is good enough hits the mail squarely on the head. Plasma may offer better PQ, OLED will also, full array offers better screen uniformity, LED offers slimmer displays, local dimming Full array is really a step up in PQ, and now local dimming edge lit is the new buzz word. The average consumer buys into all that gobbldygook. Hell, most of them still think that Samsung developed this awesome new technology called LED TV's. Decent picture at a decent price equals big profits. Throw out a new buzz word every couple of years and we'll buy into it.

It's not only buzzwords: LCD PQ is GE in the consumer eyes except of a small videophile segment. Peculiarity of this market is that there are no small companies serving videophiles like it is e.g. in the projector area. This is of course due to the panel making which in hands of big players.

Rogo: The TV market is north of 200 million LCD TVs at this point. The amount of glass used on them is enough to make billions of mobile phones. The smartphone market is roughly 1/10 as big by area as the TV market, perhaps smaller.

Measuring economics by the amount of glass used??? If anything this points mobile is better business than TV smile.gif.

Rogo: Your position as "serious observer" of technology trends is called into question when you deem curved TVs / screen valuable. Talk about a niche within a niche. It is also worth noting that curved TVs are going to be significantly more complex to ship than flat ones. Logistics isn't costless. Who is paying for this? The tiny number of people that care.

You generalize while my position was specific. I mentioned computer monitors and 110" TVs as areas where curved sounds reasonable which implicitly says it is a gimmick for other displays. In other words, Imax-type of display makes visual sense for wide angle viewing. Then I mentioned that adding small curving to standard displays may increase their wow factor but this has to be tested.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread