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 195

post #5821 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

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.

So if a 55" LED LCD uses 100 watts and a 55" WRGB OLED uses 500 watts, this tells us nothing about power usage on a 5" version of similar displays? Why? Wouldn't the power usage scale with size?
post #5822 of 9445
I hate to side with Artwood but his paranoia might have some merit. Both Plasma and Local-Dimmed LCD have failed in the market and will likely be discontinued in the coming years. This means that there is no market for a display who's primary distinguishing feature is improved picture quality. The average consumer doesn't seem to care about picture quality - else these displays would not be disappearing. I think image quality only becomes a factor when you can also match price vs. an inferior looking set. But given what happened with Plasma, even matching price may not be enough.

So the questions is whether OLED can even remain on the market long enough to reach price parity with LCD. If it takes too long, couldn't it disappear just like Plasma and LD LCD?
post #5823 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


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

You get that at the end of the day, a fab is constrained by how many substrates it can run each month, right? So the fact that the industry is spending more substrates on TV by an order of magnitude than on mobile is pretty significant. The fact that it nets more money per sq meter of mobile is also significant. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.
Quote:
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.

Fair points. I think this proves it's a niche within a niche, but I think you correctly identify the few people/display types where the niche might exist at all. The question is whether it's worth bothering to make a 110" curved screen given how much more complex that will be. My suspicion is no. On the wraparound monitor side, a 32:9 or 48:9 setup would be amazing, but I feel like selling very few of them will lead to very high costs.
post #5824 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

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.

So if a 55" LED LCD uses 100 watts and a 55" WRGB OLED uses 500 watts, this tells us nothing about power usage on a 5" version of similar displays? Why? Wouldn't the power usage scale with size?

Ah....ok, sorry. I misunderstood your statement. When you said it was "in plasma territory", you were establishing that because plasma would be too energy draining in a phone then WRGB OLED must be as well.

I don't believe energy demands scale linearly, but your point is well taken. My mistake.
post #5825 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

I hate to side with Artwood but his paranoia might have some merit. Both Plasma and Local-Dimmed LCD have failed in the market and will likely be discontinued in the coming years. This means that there is no market for a display who's primary distinguishing feature is improved picture quality. The average consumer doesn't seem to care about picture quality - else these displays would not be disappearing. I think image quality only becomes a factor when you can also match price vs. an inferior looking set. But given what happened with Plasma, even matching price may not be enough. So the questions is whether OLED can even remain on the market long enough to reach price parity with LCD. If it takes too long, couldn't it disappear just like Plasma and LD LCD?

I would not say consumer doesn't seem to care about PQ. It is that LCD PQ reached wow level for the consumer so why bother for more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

You get that at the end of the day, a fab is constrained by how many substrates it can run each month, right? So the fact that the industry is spending more substrates on TV by an order of magnitude than on mobile is pretty significant. The fact that it nets more money per sq meter of mobile is also significant. I'm happy to agree with you on that point.
Fair points. I think this proves it's a niche within a niche, but I think you correctly identify the few people/display types where the niche might exist at all. The question is whether it's worth bothering to make a 110" curved screen given how much more complex that will be. My suspicion is no. On the wraparound monitor side, a 32:9 or 48:9 setup would be amazing, but I feel like selling very few of them will lead to very high costs.

TV business is notoriously plagued by losses or razor-thin profits, mobile is doing better. There is no growth in TV and huge growth in smartphones. Hopefully LG will prove its OLED in mobile displays.

Regarding the curved screens I identified areas where there would be some real merit of having them. 55" curved TVs look pure gimmick. Though it would be interesting test with consumers by showing them same sized OLED displays e.g. 55" carrying same price stickers: flat and curved. How often people would choose curved?
post #5826 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I would not say consumer doesn't seem to care about PQ. It is that LCD PQ reached wow level for the consumer so why bother for more?
"Caring about best PQ" in the average showroom means getting the brightest, showiest panel regardless of any other performance parameters.
post #5827 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I would not say consumer doesn't seem to care about PQ. It is that LCD PQ reached wow level for the consumer so why bother for more?
TV business is notoriously plagued by losses or razor-thin profits, mobile is doing better. There is no growth in TV and huge growth in smartphones. Hopefully LG will prove its OLED in mobile displays.

There's perhaps negative growth in TVs, especially in the developed world.
Quote:
Regarding the curved screens I identified areas where there would be some real merit of having them. 55" curved TVs look pure gimmick. Though it would be interesting test with consumers by showing them same sized OLED displays e.g. 55" carrying same price stickers: flat and curved. How often people would choose curved?

The thing is at 55", the value of curved in further diminished by (a) it's general uselessness and (b) the fact it gets "cut off" at the extreme edges and (c) it looks weird. So while your test would be somewhat telling, I would not be inclined to extrapolate much from its results.
post #5828 of 9445
I'm curious: Does anyone actually believe this?

Samsung to start selling OLED TVs in Korea in June

Source: digitimes.

Samsung Electronics is expected to start selling its 55-inch OLED TVs in South Korea as of June 2013, according to industry sources, adding the company will release the products in Taiwan as of the third quarter of the year.

The company has faced ongoing issues in producing OLED TV panels for the devices due to low yields and other technology bottlenecks but is expected to have a limited amount of technology upon the TV's release in June, the sources said.

Samsung's 55-inch ES9500 will use a series of native red, green, and blue subpixel OLEDs to create a picture, while LG Electronic's already launched 55-inch EM9600 uses white OLEDs (WOLED) overlaid by red, green, and blue filters in addition to a fourth, filter-free white OLED subpixel.
post #5829 of 9445
LG Display Expects 'Meaningful' OLED Profit By Mid-2014

Source: Consumer Electronics Daily

LG Display’s OLED business will generate “a meaningful profit” by mid-2014, surpassing the profit of its LCD business two to three years later, said Investor Relations Head Hee Yeon Kim on a Q1 earnings call. The OLED profit will come as LG Display shifts more production to a new 8th-generation OLED TV panel line in Paju, South Korea, that’s scheduled to start mass production in first half 2014, the company said. In moving production to 8G from the current 4G line that’s being used to produce 55-inch panels, LG Display will strive to improve "the cost-competitiveness of OLED and raising the yield rate and product efficiency,” Kim said.


[More available to subscribers]
post #5830 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

So if a 55" LED LCD uses 100 watts and a 55" WRGB OLED uses 500 watts, this tells us nothing about power usage on a 5" version of similar displays? Why? Wouldn't the power usage scale with size?

The 500 watt figure is meaningless, so let's not even bother comparing it. Power usage would scale with size mostly, but there are a lot of reasons why it wouldn't necessarily be linear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson View Post

LG Display Expects 'Meaningful' OLED Profit By Mid-2014

Source: Consumer Electronics Daily

LG Display’s OLED business will generate “a meaningful profit” by mid-2014, surpassing the profit of its LCD business two to three years later, said Investor Relations Head Hee Yeon Kim on a Q1 earnings call. The OLED profit will come as LG Display shifts more production to a new 8th-generation OLED TV panel line in Paju, South Korea, that’s scheduled to start mass production in first half 2014, the company said. In moving production to 8G from the current 4G line that’s being used to produce 55-inch panels, LG Display will strive to improve "the cost-competitiveness of OLED and raising the yield rate and product efficiency,” Kim said.

So the only reason this is interesting is that mentioning it on an earnings call carries some weight. Of course, "meaningful" carries no meaning.

I like hearing that they are still believing production will ramp up within a year. This is significant given that current production is basically zero.

The other profit statements are misleading. It's not hard to beat out the profit of their TV business on much smaller OLED volume since OLED won't chase low-profit entry segments and will have no low-margin products period. The question is will they move enough units at high margin. Again, they basically have to get pricing comfortably under $3000 by 2017 for this to come true. May the odds be ever in their favor.
post #5831 of 9445
Maybe it is time for some of these companies with all the money and time they use to get OLED to become manufacturable to start to sink some real R&D money into OLET (Organic Light-Emitting Transistor).
Probably one OLET variant is the basis for the Sony's Crystal LED prototype.
post #5832 of 9445
Quote:
Maybe it is time for some of these companies with all the money and time they use to get OLED to become manufacturable to start to sink some real R&D money into OLET

What production problems with OLED do you think will be solved with OLET? I know very little about OLET. The only advantage a quick search gave me was the ability to use OLET as the active matrix, reducing the need for the normal TFT, or more likely these days, would remove the need for IGZO, since the OLET could do that job. But you still have all the other problems that I can see, limited blue life, must be sealed against oxygen, deposition etc. Solving those issues for one tech would solve them for the other. There are probably issues with OLET that don't exist for OLED, but less so the other way around.
post #5833 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

"Caring about best PQ" in the average showroom means getting the brightest, showiest panel regardless of any other performance parameters.

Truer words were never written. Samsung got to #1 in tv sales because they had/have the most eye-searing "Dynamic" mode.
post #5834 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

"Caring about best PQ" in the average showroom means getting the brightest, showiest panel regardless of any other performance parameters.

Truer words were never written. Samsung got to #1 in tv sales because they had/have the most eye-searing "Dynamic" mode.

Yeah, I noticed that about them in 2010. I had to wonder if part of their anti-reflection magic had to do with the fact that they were overpowering every other potential reflection in the room by 3x. LOL....
post #5835 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstephen View Post

What production problems with OLED do you think will be solved with OLET? I know very little about OLET. The only advantage a quick search gave me was the ability to use OLET as the active matrix, reducing the need for the normal TFT, or more likely these days, would remove the need for IGZO, since the OLET could do that job. But you still have all the other problems that I can see, limited blue life, must be sealed against oxygen, deposition etc. Solving those issues for one tech would solve them for the other. There are probably issues with OLET that don't exist for OLED, but less so the other way around.

The problem with OLED in larger displays is the deposit of OLED material.

OLET is a transistor that gives light itself. No need for further deposits of organic material like Oled.

Organic light-emitting Diode (OLED) vs Organic light-emitting Transistor (OLET).

An OLET is both the light and power source.

OLET is far from being ready for making displays, but a lot of research is done with many variations that try to come up with the best solutions.

Most of the more current papers on OLET are locket behind paywalls. Here are one explanation from 2010.
Quote:
What The Heck is OLET Technology, and Will It Replace OLEDs?

But now there is OLET, or organic light emitting transistors, which are reported to be as much as 100 times more efficient than equivalent OLEDs, and twice as efficient as optimized OLEDs. According to Nanowerk, where OLEDs fail, OLETs are taking up the slack.

"OLET is a new light-emission concept, providing planar light sources that can be easily integrated in substrates of different nature - silicon, glass, plastic, paper, etc. - using standard microelectronic techniques," Michele Muccini, a researcher at the Institute of Nanostructured Materials (ISMN) in Bologna, Italy, explains to Nanowerk. "The focus of OLET development is the possibility to enable new display/light source technologies, and exploit a transport geometry to suppress the deleterious photon losses and exciton quenching mechanisms inherent in the OLED architecture."

So, while OLEDs have some deficiencies that cause energy inefficiencies, OLETs hold the potential to be of equal quality lighting and display while zapping those energy losses. The research shows that "OLETs enable the control of quenching and electrode-induced photon loss processes in an organic light-emitting device. These fundamental processes are those that still limit efficiency and brightness of OLED technology."

And the research shows that they are over 100 times more efficient than equivalent OLEDs, and over 2 times more efficient than optimized OLED with the same emitting layer.

A longer explanation here.
Quote:
To put all this another simpler way the following advantages can be seen in OLETs:

*A transistor-based light source switches on or off much faster than an OLED

*An OLET requires less circuitry; it is the switch and the light both

*An OLET has better light output at less power than an OLED

*The amount of light produced can be adjusted more than with an OLED

*Because OLETs are layered materials they can be integrated onto computer chips; LEDs cannot

*Because OLETs can be integrated into chips transmission speeds are reduced
http://liambean.hubpages.com/hub/Organic-Light-Emitting-Transistor-Will-it-Replace-OLEDs

A abstract from a paper from 2011 behind a paywall;
Quote:
Intrinsic nonuniformity in the polycrystalline-silicon backplane transistors of active matrix organic light-emitting diode displays severely limits display size. Organic semiconductors might provide an alternative, but their mobility remains too low to be useful in the conventional thin-film transistor design.

Here we demonstrate an organic channel light-emitting transistor operating at low voltage, with low power dissipation, and high aperture ratio, in the three primary colors.

The high level of performance is enabled by a single-wall carbon nanotube network source electrode that permits integration of the drive transistor and the light emitter into an efficient single stacked device.

The performance demonstrated is comparable to that of polycrystalline-silicon backplane transistor-driven display pixels.

I just wanted to mention OLET as something new and more interesting into this OLED discussion that goes around and around in endless circles. wink.gif
Edited by coolscan - 5/8/13 at 4:08pm
post #5836 of 9445
Hmmmm......fascinating, but I want to ask about something I think is unclear in their stats.

I followed that link. When they say "100 times more efficient", there are two ways of interpreting that, aren't there?

1. It takes 1/100th the power of OLED.
2. It wastes 1/100th the amount of power OLED wastes.

If it's #1, that's truly interesting. Is it even possible though?

If it's #2, then it means something, but not a lot. If item A uses 90% of the power for light with 10% waste, and item B uses 99.9% of its power for light with .1% waste, then it's wasting 1/100th the amount item A does, but it's still only an issue of 90% vs 99.9%.
post #5837 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

The 500 watt figure is meaningless, so let's not even bother comparing it.

Do you have a source for a more accurate figure? The FCC report was all I could find. I can only assume that LG's OLED operates similar to a plasma where power usage depends on the content shown. So darker images will presumably consume much less power while brighter content may hit 500W. Maybe their color filters are very inefficient and they need all this power to generate enough light output? How much additional light is lost in the glasses with passive 3D?
post #5838 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Do you have a source for a more accurate figure? The FCC report was all I could find. I can only assume that LG's OLED operates similar to a plasma where power usage depends on the content shown. So darker images will presumably consume much less power while brighter content may hit 500W. Maybe their color filters are very inefficient and they need all this power to generate enough light output? How much additional light is lost in the glasses with passive 3D?

Well, I don't have notes from CES 2012 anymore, but I recall very clearly that in real world usage the LG OLED will use less power than an LCD TV of similar size, per LG. That doesn't mean it won't have higher peaks (it will), but it does mean on average it will come in under 100 watts.

I can tell you that I doubt very much 500 watts will be attainable with normal settings. That was probably a "max power output" case.

The color-filter design is less efficient than a true RGB design with some content and more efficient with other content. You can see that in LG's presentations.
post #5839 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

The color-filter design is less efficient than a true RGB design with some content and more efficient with other content. You can see that in LG's presentations.


Hmmmm......Why would it be more efficient in any situation?...that confuses me. A filter's job is to throw away light. An uncovered LED throws out a spectral color.
post #5840 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

There's perhaps negative growth in TVs, especially in the developed world.
The thing is at 55", the value of curved in further diminished by (a) it's general uselessness and (b) the fact it gets "cut off" at the extreme edges and (c) it looks weird. So while your test would be somewhat telling, I would not be inclined to extrapolate much from its results.

While on the 55" curving is a gimmick I am not sure it looks weird. Definitely it would be weird if curved too much but slight, just a touch, of bending might have some magic to it. For 4K 110" with which the viewing distance would be in the 2.5-3 PH range I feel curving would provide visual advantage. I have to look into projector area to see what is the status of curved screens there.
post #5841 of 9445
TGM, it's more efficient because of the white.

Irkuck, the prototypes looked weird. Way too curved.
post #5842 of 9445
I wonder how the curved would look as part of a wall that had a custom matched curve to it, sort of embedded in there. Might look pretty cool...
post #5843 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky2 View Post

I wonder how the curved would look as part of a wall that had a custom matched curve to it, sort of embedded in there. Might look pretty cool...


I was wondering that too. I couldn't decide if it would look cool, or kind of......creepy or something, like the room was trying to collapse on me.

Maybe they're betting the company on selling to the 4 rooms in the world that would meet that criteria. smile.gif

This has got to be a CES-style "did it because we can" kind of thing. Call me a skeptic on this particular endeavor of their's.
post #5844 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I was wondering that too. I couldn't decide if it would look cool, or kind of......creepy or something, like the room was trying to collapse on me.

Maybe they're betting the company on selling to the 4 rooms in the world that would meet that criteria. smile.gif

This has got to be a CES-style "did it because we can" kind of thing. Call me a skeptic on this particular endeavor of their's.

way off-topic of OLED tech
but, curved is cool or lets say flexible as next extension for this tech
Think about 360 curved panel that you stick your head inside to be able look around - that required 360 view camera as well.
I watched long time ago short film in panoramic theater that had screens around, while people stand inside. I don't remember number of screens / cameras 6 or 8 or etc.
post #5845 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikek753 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I was wondering that too. I couldn't decide if it would look cool, or kind of......creepy or something, like the room was trying to collapse on me.

Maybe they're betting the company on selling to the 4 rooms in the world that would meet that criteria. smile.gif

This has got to be a CES-style "did it because we can" kind of thing. Call me a skeptic on this particular endeavor of their's.

way off-topic of OLED tech
but, curved is cool or lets say flexible as next extension for this tech
Think about 360 curved panel that you stick your head inside to be able look around - that required 360 view camera as well.
I watched long time ago short film in panoramic theater that had screens around, while people stand inside. I don't remember number of screens / cameras 6 or 8 or etc.


I've seen that as well, and it looked horrible. You cannot "draw" a scene around you and have it just "work" without distortion.....it's not the same thing as your own real-life environment supplying an image to your eyes from your periphery.
post #5846 of 9445
Yea, it does sound tacky (pardon the term). wink.gif
post #5847 of 9445
I hadn't checked up on the advancement of OLED tech for some time after initially reading about it vs PLED and the whole Kodak vs Cavendish Labs bit. Last I'd heard those working on OLED for TVs were experimenting with color filtering a black and white display to avoid the 10,000 hr deterioration of the blue emitters.

Then I did some checking yesterday and was surprised to read about the PM9700, and EM9600. I wasn't aware such large sets were even in the prototype let alone production stages. It's rather confusing though since CNET refers to the PM9700 as plasma and talks of it having poor black detail.

Enter the EM9600, apparently a true OLED TV that LG claims has none of the PQ problems of other types of sets, or even other OLED sets. The one nagging bit for me though was no mention of any B&W w/ color filtering or short lifespan problems. If they'd solved that riddle you'd think they'd mention it.

So then I stumbled upon something even more surprising. After all the talk of Panasonic's TV division struggling financially, I find an article about them partnering with Sony to make OLED or P-OLED TVs. At first I'm thinking, great! One of my fave brands not only surviving but coming out with new tech.

When all through the article the term PLED was used, I was optimistic about them solving the short lifespan problem. It talked of Sumitomo having built a large factory to make the screen material, but the bottom line was it's merely OLED and P-OLED fab they're producing, not full PLED. They've upped the lifespan by it, but only to 20,000 hrs, which IMO is still not good enough. That's still only 1/3 the lifespan of a typical LCD.

I seem to recall in my searching yesterday reading the word "encapsulated" being used, which I hadn't encountered before in researching OLED tech. I get the feeling they mean instead of color filtering a B&W display, they are starting with OLED, then spray coating it with polymer to minimize deterioration, thus the "P-OLED" moniker. If so it seems this would not be nearly as durable as using a polymer (PLED) film to begin with.

Again, I haven't found much details on LG's EM9600, but besides their talk of it having no PQ issues, I recall one article describing their manufacturing process as using lots of filtering to get the colors right. Whether that means they start with a B&W display and color filter it is hard to say, but I keep coming back to the fact that you'd think if they'd solved the short lifespan problem that would be one of THE main selling points, yet all through LG's stage demo for it, they never mentioned that once.

"The company also says that the performance level of their PLED materials is good enough for OLED TVs. Their blue OLED emitter now has a lifetime of over 20,000 hours."

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

Why is it no one seems to be using full on PLED tech, eg coating the substrate with a PLED vs OLED film? The guys that formed Cavendish Labs tested PLED diodes to last upwards 100,000 hrs way back when PLED was discovered. Even if that's just 100,000 for a grey scale test vs color, you'd think it would still be far better than a mere 20,000 hrs when used in full color displays.

(EDITED)
Well it appears this "P-OLED" is really just PLED. They actually ARE using a polymer film. Disappointing that even with a full on poly film they only get 20,000 hr lifespan. I'm now thinking starting with a B&W display and color filtering it (similar to the way DLP tech works) would have been better. http://www.oled-info.com/p-oled

For some time they've been telling us these OLED/PLED screens are going to be cheaper to mass produce since they can literally use ink jet printers, but they're going to have to be to keep the consumer price down much lower than current tech if they're only going to get 20,000 hrs out of them. Our disposable society just got more disposable.

I've also since read coolscan's post on OLET, and I gotta say, if they can make them without the blue emitter deterioration, it sounds a lot more promising than OLED or PLED, and if Muccini is the first to figure it out, Italy could certainly use that kind of help financially.
Edited by Hi Def Fan - 5/12/13 at 2:32pm
post #5848 of 9445
I think it's time to stir the pot with a little wild speculation.

Samsung Building Bendy, Flexible TV Displays

Source: hdtvtest

No one will deny that the next-generation of 4K (Ultra HD) and OLED TVs are absolutely dazzling from a visual perspective, but that doesn’t mean you can enjoy the experience from anywhere in your living room. As wonderful as LG’s sexy 55-inch OLED or Samsung’s sleek 85-inch S9 might be, the viewing experience can still be pretty flat, literally speaking. After all, they don’t call them “flat-screen” TVs for nothing.

But the time when flat-screen displays are consigned to the great TV scrap-heap in the sky may not be all that far off. Already we’ve seen Samsung and LG come out with curved OLED models, though viewers will need to stay rooted to their sofas to enjoy it. But if Samsung’s new designs are anything to go by, that might not be the case for much longer. A newly published patent suggests that the Korean firm is looking to build a new generation of flexible displays, ones that can be bent into shape via a remote control, offering unparalleled viewing angles from every corner of your living room.

And it’s not just the physical display that flexes its muscles – the remote would also be able to calibrate the images to fit perfectly within the screen’s new shape. All of this would be orchestrated by a “panel deformation member” at the rear of the display. The patent illustrates how it would be possible to rotate or bend just a portion of the display, or else shift the entire thing, according to the viewer’s preferences. The remote control would work via a bluetooth or infrared connection, pulling up a menu that gives a range of screen configuration options, allowing viewers to customize the degree of rotation and bend to their satisfaction.

Not that Samsung has said anything at all about making flexible TVs just yet. For now, all it’s done is file a patent, but all the signs are that the company is heading in that direction. It’s rumored to have been working on bendy smartphones for some time now – a lot of people were disappointed that the Galaxy SV turned out to be rigid – but it wouldn’t take much more effort to apply this technology to a larger screen size.

One thing we do know is that Samsung is keen on discovering new ways to let people customize their viewing experiences. It’s latest flagship TV, the F8000 Smart TV we saw at CES, features such delights as social integration, a personalized recommendation engine and voice controls. In future, Samsung might just be able to customize the viewing experience in a brand new way, placing an emphasis on next-generation hardware rather than just tailored content
post #5849 of 9445
If you want really wild speculation, industry sources seem to be claiming that Samsung has had a breakthrough with small mask scanning for their RGB OLED televisions with yields at 60%.

Article in Korean (used Google translate).

http://www.etnews.com/news/device/device/2766941_1479.html
post #5850 of 9445
The proof of the pudding will be in the release of thousands of displays per month to the market, I suppose.

It still seems like a fairly non-scaleable way to make millions of TVs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread