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 213

post #6361 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Sure, but failure rates for plasma on TV sized screens (37", etc.) were exceedingly high in the very beginning too, no?

No, I don't think they were anywhere 90%. More that the factories had to be built the could build them in volume and material cost.
post #6362 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

The OLED layers are deposited and excited separately (whether it's a yellow + blue or a red, green and blue). The idea that there is some magic color stability of the LG even though the blue will age faster is false. The Kodak paper is either (a) complete fiction or (b) based on having a yellow OLED that is equally terrible to the blue in terms of lifetime, which simply isn't the case.

Like I said in my earlier post, there are multiple sources for this information. Since I dont have a PhD in organic chemistry, I tend to trust info that is confirmed by multiple people that do. The structure of the OLED does matter and white light produced from a RGB OLED (Samsung's approach) will have different characteristics than the stacked OLED that LG is using.

Here is a paper directly from LG that was delivered at SID in 2009. They are showing a stacked OLED with a red/green phosphorescent layer and a separate blue fluorescent layer. This is likely identical to the structure in the television. Page 906 shows a graph with the emissions spectrum after aging to 50% luminance. A similar graph for a RGB OLED would show relative stability in the red and green peaks when the blue peak had halved and that would definitely change the white point of the display.

http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/60_WhiteOLEDs(OLEDs).pdf

A presentation from Universal display that gives a concrete metric on the CIE shift of white OLED with red/green and blue structure after aging to 80% luminance (pg 7). A bit of research shows that the "duv" shift is very small.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/hack_ssl09.pdf

A small color shift doesnt mean zero, but the color filters should help in reducing the overall impact. Considering the data from the LG paper, it certainly seems that any color shift would be less with a WRGB television than with a RGB television.
post #6363 of 9447
A ridiculously detailed look by vision researchers at the PVM-2541 professional OLED from Sony.

http://www.journalofvision.org/content/13/7/6.full
post #6364 of 9447
Thank you Wizziwig.

The video displayed the screen in the 360 but on one level. I wondered how it performs when viewed slightly higher or lower than eye level. Also how would a film look when in 'letter-box'? Would the upper and lower black areas be square? (sorry if I am not too clear. rolleyes.gif )

Bad show about not being able to wall-mount a curved TV. Rather an essential prerequisite for my room I am afraid. eek.gif

mp1
post #6365 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

A ridiculously detailed look by vision researchers at the PVM-2541 professional OLED from Sony.

http://www.journalofvision.org/content/13/7/6.full

This paper confirms excellent visual properties of OLED. The only issue to be clarified yet is long-term burn-in.
post #6366 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This paper confirms excellent visual properties of OLED. The only issue to be clarified yet is long-term burn-in.
Looks like it suffers from a very aggressive ABL, and motion handling is going to suck compared to CRT and Lightboost LCDs.

Fortunately it seems that reducing contrast to 67 will at least eliminate the ABL, unlike Plasmas which tend to have a fixed ABL that ignores your contrast setting. But that reduces peak white down to 150cd/m2.
post #6367 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

Like I said in my earlier post, there are multiple sources for this information. Since I dont have a PhD in organic chemistry, I tend to trust info that is confirmed by multiple people that do. The structure of the OLED does matter and white light produced from a RGB OLED (Samsung's approach) will have different characteristics than the stacked OLED that LG is using.

Here is a paper directly from LG that was delivered at SID in 2009. They are showing a stacked OLED with a red/green phosphorescent layer and a separate blue fluorescent layer. This is likely identical to the structure in the television. Page 906 shows a graph with the emissions spectrum after aging to 50% luminance. A similar graph for a RGB OLED would show relative stability in the red and green peaks when the blue peak had halved and that would definitely change the white point of the display.

http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/60_WhiteOLEDs(OLEDs).pdf

A presentation from Universal display that gives a concrete metric on the CIE shift of white OLED with red/green and blue structure after aging to 80% luminance (pg 7). A bit of research shows that the "duv" shift is very small.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/hack_ssl09.pdf

A small color shift doesnt mean zero, but the color filters should help in reducing the overall impact. Considering the data from the LG paper, it certainly seems that any color shift would be less with a WRGB television than with a RGB television.

So to me, that paper proves that absolutely nothing magical is happening. It just proves that so long as the blue hasn't broken down, the color doesn't shift. Yay, 31,000 hour half life. Plenty reasonable, but not exactly remarkable and short enough to scare people -- rightly -- that burn-in ought to be possible.

The stuff late in that paper doesn't say, at least in my skimming, "we've defied laws of physics and something that lasts 10x as long breaks down at the same rate as the thing lasting 1x". Rather it says, "within the duration of 1x, we'll be ok."
post #6368 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So to me, that paper proves that absolutely nothing magical is happening. It just proves that so long as the blue hasn't broken down, the color doesn't shift. Yay, 31,000 hour half life. Plenty reasonable, but not exactly remarkable and short enough to scare people -- rightly -- that burn-in ought to be possible.

The stuff late in that paper doesn't say, at least in my skimming, "we've defied laws of physics and something that lasts 10x as long breaks down at the same rate as the thing lasting 1x". Rather it says, "within the duration of 1x, we'll be ok."

I wasnt implying that the blue lasts longer. I was talking about the color stability of white.

Calibrate both the LG and Samsung television and let them run with a white screen for 30,000 hours. Absent some compensation, which television will have a less skewed CIE coordinates for white? The information in these papers supports the idea that the LG television will have a more stable white. Now I assume that the Samsung television will compensate in someway for the degradation in blue. However, that comes at a price. You can drive the blue pixel harder to get the same brightness and a more stable white, but that also means that the blue will degrade even faster. One thing is for sure, if I was buying either television, I would never run them at maximum brightness.

Something else that is interesting from the LG paper, they actually saw an increased intensity of the blue peak when it is was in the white stack than when the blue was run on its own (fig 4a pg 905). They speculate on an explanation but dont seem to have a concrete idea of what is occurring. I assume they have ruled out magic and that there is some interaction between the layers.
post #6369 of 9447
Please be gentle in your response. Since LG is using color filters over their OLED pixels--couldn't they theoretically do away with having a blue OLED altogether? Wouldn't that solve the issue with lifespan?
post #6370 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by homogenic View Post

Please be gentle in your response. Since LG is using color filters over their OLED pixels--couldn't they theoretically do away with having a blue OLED altogether? Wouldn't that solve the issue with lifespan?

The problem is that you need the blue to create the white light that is run through the filters. If you ran a red/green light through the blue filter, you would get very little light through and it would be the wrong shade of blue.
post #6371 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So to me, that paper proves that absolutely nothing magical is happening. It just proves that so long as the blue hasn't broken down, the color doesn't shift. Yay, 31,000 hour half life. Plenty reasonable, but not exactly remarkable and short enough to scare people -- rightly -- that burn-in ought to be possible.

That lifetime also does't add up to real-world results. Let's presume that the OLEDs at Harrods have been on display for ~4 months. Even if they were running them 24/7, that's ~3000 hours. The burn-in that we saw in the screenshots appeared much more severe than a 10% intensity drop (assuming linear falloff with age). If they close the store at night, they probably ran fewer hours... maybe 1500.

The graph in the paper doesn't have enough sample points to determine if the intensity drop might be very non-linear and have a larger delta during the initial lifetime hours. Hopefully that's the case. It would mean that if you don't abuse the set during the first few hundred hours, it would remain stable for the remaining 30000. The store was also probably driving them at the suggested 1000 nits. In a home environment, nobody would crank the brightness that high - that's almost 300 fL !
post #6372 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So to me, that paper proves that absolutely nothing magical is happening. It just proves that so long as the blue hasn't broken down, the color doesn't shift. Yay, 31,000 hour half life. Plenty reasonable, but not exactly remarkable and short enough to scare people -- rightly -- that burn-in ought to be possible.

That lifetime also does't add up to real-world results. Let's presume that the OLEDs at Harrods have been on display for ~4 months. Even if they were running them 24/7, that's ~3000 hours. The burn-in that we saw in the screenshots appeared much more severe than a 10% intensity drop (assuming linear falloff with age). If they close the store at night, they probably ran fewer hours... maybe 1500.

 

Holy crap.  You're right!

 

Wizziwig continues:
The graph in the paper doesn't have enough sample points to determine if the intensity drop might be very non-linear and have a larger delta during the initial lifetime hours.

 

That doesn't entirely make sense to me.  It's not a plasma cell.  I don't believe there is any evidence for non-linear wearing.  Besides, even if there *were* non-linear wearing, it's not the consecutive non-stop usage problem that plasma has, is it?  The bottom line is the number of hours a subpixel is on (and at what intensity).  Unless you're saying that in the first few hours, OLED's are sensitive to being on "full blast".....that's different than talking about a non-linear intensity drop, it's about sensitivity.

post #6373 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

I wasnt implying that the blue lasts longer. I was talking about the color stability of white.

Calibrate both the LG and Samsung television and let them run with a white screen for 30,000 hours. Absent some compensation, which television will have a less skewed CIE coordinates for white? The information in these papers supports the idea that the LG television will have a more stable white. Now I assume that the Samsung television will compensate in someway for the degradation in blue. However, that comes at a price. You can drive the blue pixel harder to get the same brightness and a more stable white, but that also means that the blue will degrade even faster. One thing is for sure, if I was buying either television, I would never run them at maximum brightness.

Something else that is interesting from the LG paper, they actually saw an increased intensity of the blue peak when it is was in the white stack than when the blue was run on its own (fig 4a pg 905). They speculate on an explanation but dont seem to have a concrete idea of what is occurring. I assume they have ruled out magic and that there is some interaction between the layers.

I know you are not saying the blue lasts longer.

But the idea they can magically make the white color stable is odd. Unless the blue stays totally stable until it dies, the white can't stay stable -- at least nowhere near as long as the yellow / RG do. One lasts 10x as long as the other. Period.

You want to believe it's stable till the "half brightness" plateau? Maybe it is. I'm skeptical that's true, but maybe it's true enough especially in a world where 5 years of use for most people is <10,000 hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

That lifetime also does't add up to real-world results. Let's presume that the OLEDs at Harrods have been on display for ~4 months. Even if they were running them 24/7, that's ~3000 hours. The burn-in that we saw in the screenshots appeared much more severe than a 10% intensity drop (assuming linear falloff with age). If they close the store at night, they probably ran fewer hours... maybe 1500.

The graph in the paper doesn't have enough sample points to determine if the intensity drop might be very non-linear and have a larger delta during the initial lifetime hours. Hopefully that's the case. It would mean that if you don't abuse the set during the first few hundred hours, it would remain stable for the remaining 30000. The store was also probably driving them at the suggested 1000 nits. In a home environment, nobody would crank the brightness that high - that's almost 300 fL !

Who knows. Obviously the Harrods sets are being abused. But it's disturbing that such a small amount of abuse has clearly permanently damaged them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post


That doesn't entirely make sense to me.  It's not a plasma cell.  I don't believe there is any evidence for non-linear wearing.  Besides, even if there *were* non-linear wearing, it's not the consecutive non-stop usage problem that plasma has, is it?  The bottom line is the number of hours a subpixel is on (and at what intensity).  Unless you're saying that in the first few hours, OLED's are sensitive to being on "full blast".....that's different than talking about a non-linear intensity drop, it's about sensitivity.

It's at least as likely it's somewhat non-linear as that it's perfectly linear.
post #6374 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Holy crap.  You're right!

Actually, I forgot that the 31K hours stat was for time to half-brightness - not to 0. So the Harrods sets should have experienced even less of a drop during that time - much less than 10%.

The non-linear theory I was going for was something to this effect:

Let's say during the first 1000 hours, the pixels lose 50% of the brightness that they will lose over the next 30000. So 25% drop during first 1000 hours. If you keep wear even across all pixels during that first 1000 hours, you will be left with 75% brightness to spread over the remaining lifetime. If those extra hours wear at a slower rate, it will take longer to see visible burn-in, then you would have during the first 1000 that burn at a faster rate.

Of course this is all fantasy - I have no way of knowing if the wear is linear or not. I guess I'm used to the idea from my front projector bulbs - which lose most of their brightness in the first few 100 hours, then continue much more stable for the next 1000-2000 hours. OLED is totally different animal. At least it keeps hope alive of usable OLED.
post #6375 of 9447
So I looked again at a Kodak paper linked earlier in this thread to find evidence for the non-linear burn rate:

http://lib.semi.ac.cn:8080/tsh/dzzy/wsqk/SPIE/vol5214/5214-233.pdf

If you look at page 237, there is a graph of luminance vs. operational time for the first 800 hours. If you look at the graph, you see it dropped ~20% in the first 800 hours. If the burn-rate was linear, we would have expected the half-life to be ~2000 hours, not the claimed 10K hours. Now a device that claims 31K half-life would probably perform even better after the initial rapid luminance burn-off.

If this theory is true, maybe LG and Samsung should pre-age these panels at their factory to reduce the risk of early burn-in by careless stores and owners. I guess that would only increase the price even more.
post #6376 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

So I looked again at a Kodak paper linked earlier in this thread to find evidence for the non-linear burn rate:

http://lib.semi.ac.cn:8080/tsh/dzzy/wsqk/SPIE/vol5214/5214-233.pdf

If you look at page 237, there is a graph of luminance vs. operational time for the first 800 hours. If you look at the graph, you see it dropped ~20% in the first 800 hours. If the burn-rate was linear, we would have expected the half-life to be ~2000 hours, not the claimed 10K hours. Now a device that claims 31K half-life would probably perform even better after the initial rapid luminance burn-off.

If this theory is true, maybe LG and Samsung should pre-age these panels at their factory to reduce the risk of early burn-in by careless stores and owners. I guess that would only increase the price even more.

 

No, that wouldn't work.  I think you might be looking at this from a plasma perspective again, in which case it's still a sensitivity thing, not a non-linear wear thing.

 

Let's look at only a single blue OLED (forget the display).

 

Regardless of how the OLED was aged, it'll only have so much lifetime.  So many hours.  Period.  Use them up at the factory, or on the showroom floor.  That's the number of hours you get.  If it wears quicker in the beginning, well, that beginning "speedy wear" will happen either way.  There's *ALWAYS* an initial 1000 hours no matter where the OLED is.

post #6377 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

So I looked again at a Kodak paper linked earlier in this thread to find evidence for the non-linear burn rate:
http://lib.semi.ac.cn:8080/tsh/dzzy/wsqk/SPIE/vol5214/5214-233.pdf
If you look at page 237, there is a graph of luminance vs. operational time for the first 800 hours. If you look at the graph, you see it dropped ~20% in the first 800 hours. If the burn-rate was linear, we would have expected the half-life to be ~2000 hours, not the claimed 10K hours. Now a device that claims 31K half-life would probably perform even better after the initial rapid luminance burn-off.
If this theory is true, maybe LG and Samsung should pre-age these panels at their factory to reduce the risk of early burn-in by careless stores and owners. I guess that would only increase the price even more.

Notice the Kodak paper is 10ys old. It would be odd if OLED technology have not improved during this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Looks like it suffers from a very aggressive ABL, and motion handling is going to suck compared to CRT and Lightboost LCDs.
Fortunately it seems that reducing contrast to 67 will at least eliminate the ABL, unlike Plasmas which tend to have a fixed ABL that ignores your contrast setting. But that reduces peak white down to 150cd/m2.

These seem to be minor effects, overal PQ is assessed as excellent.

The only serious problem left to check is burn-in. Fortunately those demo OLED sets in shops are fantastic testbeds for burn-in. Just wait a couple of months. Assuming of course they run them all the time during the shop opening hours in the torch mode eek.gif.
post #6378 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, that wouldn't work.  I think you might be looking at this from a plasma perspective again, in which case it's still a sensitivity thing, not a non-linear wear thing.

Let's look at only a single blue OLED (forget the display).

Regardless of how the OLED was aged, it'll only have so much lifetime.  So many hours.  Period.  Use them up at the factory, or on the showroom floor.  That's the number of hours you get.  If it wears quicker in the beginning, well, that beginning "speedy wear" will happen either way.  There's *ALWAYS* an initial 1000 hours no matter where the OLED is.

If the pixels on the Harrod's displays are still in their initial fast intensity drop section of the non-linear curve, then the burned pixels could exhibit an exaggerated (relative to expected linear half-life) darkening compared to their non-burned neighbors. Eventually when all the pixels reach some kind of platoe where their burn-rates equalize, the intensity difference might become smaller and less visible. The 1000 hours number is just an example based on that old paper. Who knows how the curve looks on these new sets. It would be nice if Harrod's ran white slides overnight on those sets to see if it reduced the apparent burn-in over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Notice the Kodak paper is 10ys old. It would be odd if OLED technology have not improved during this time.

Sure, as illustrated by the increase from 10K to 31K half-life. I was only using it as an example to show the non-linear intensity drop.
post #6379 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, that wouldn't work.  I think you might be looking at this from a plasma perspective again, in which case it's still a sensitivity thing, not a non-linear wear thing.

Let's look at only a single blue OLED (forget the display).

Regardless of how the OLED was aged, it'll only have so much lifetime.  So many hours.  Period.  Use them up at the factory, or on the showroom floor.  That's the number of hours you get.  If it wears quicker in the beginning, well, that beginning "speedy wear" will happen either way.  There's *ALWAYS* an initial 1000 hours no matter where the OLED is.

If the pixels on the Harrod's displays are still in their initial fast intensity drop section of the non-linear curve, then the burned pixels could exhibit an exaggerated (relative to expected linear half-life) darkening compared to their non-burned neighbors. Eventually when all the pixels reach some kind of platoe where their burn-rates equalize, the intensity difference might become smaller and less visible. The 1000 hours number is just an example based on that old paper. Who knows how the curve looks on these new sets. It would be nice if Harrod's ran white slides overnight on those sets to see if it reduced the apparent burn-in over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Notice the Kodak paper is 10ys old. It would be odd if OLED technology have not improved during this time.

Sure, as illustrated by the increase from 10K to 31K half-life. I was only using it as an example to show the non-linear intensity drop.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, that wouldn't work.  I think you might be looking at this from a plasma perspective again, in which case it's still a sensitivity thing, not a non-linear wear thing.

Let's look at only a single blue OLED (forget the display).

Regardless of how the OLED was aged, it'll only have so much lifetime.  So many hours.  Period.  Use them up at the factory, or on the showroom floor.  That's the number of hours you get.  If it wears quicker in the beginning, well, that beginning "speedy wear" will happen either way.  There's *ALWAYS* an initial 1000 hours no matter where the OLED is.

If the pixels on the Harrod's displays are still in their initial fast intensity drop section of the non-linear curve, then the burned pixels could exhibit an exaggerated (relative to expected linear half-life) darkening compared to their non-burned neighbors. Eventually when all the pixels reach some kind of platoe where their burn-rates equalize, the intensity difference might become smaller and less visible. The 1000 hours number is just an example based on that old paper. Who knows how the curve looks on these new sets. It would be nice if Harrod's ran white slides overnight on those sets to see if it reduced the apparent burn-in over time.

 

I see what you're talking about now, thanks.

post #6380 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post



I see what you're talking about now, thanks.

Glad that finally made sense. smile.gif

This is why I still think that factory aging would be beneficial to get all the pixels into the "slow intensity decay" part of the curve. Sure pixels would still burn, but it would take much more time for the intensity delta to reach the same level as it would during the initial fast-decay period.

Unless LG is lying about the 31K half-life and color stability, I don't see any other way to explain the amount of visible burn. Hopefully someone on the forum will eventually buy one and we'll get more data.
post #6381 of 9447
Well, it seems sketchy to me that the wear rate would be so oddball. But if you're right, it'll only be a small matter of time for the rest of the display to catch up.

The biggest reason I still doubt this to be going on is that the bright white boxes are still bright white when they're on. I'm understanding this beast less and less as time goes on.
post #6382 of 9447
Phosphor aging is probably different from OLED aging.
It's possible that the mid-grays don't age fast, but the full-whites ages much faster on OLED than plasmas.

I'd love to see aging curves for all intensities -- it may not be a linear relationship.
For example, you may be able to display a 10% gray for far more than 10 times longer than a 100% white.
Discrete LED has that non-linear behaviour, so I'm wondering if OLED's have that as well.

And we've got to combine both OLED aging and phosphor aging, in OLED displays that combines both OLED and phosphor (e.g. white OLED + phosphor).
post #6383 of 9447
For what it's worth, the only confirmed U.S. Samsung dealer will be doing mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers. He will also track luminance drop over time. Hopefully that will give us better data about projected half-life of these sets.
post #6384 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

For what it's worth, the only confirmed U.S. Samsung dealer will be doing mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers. He will also track luminance drop over time. Hopefully that will give us better data about projected half-life of these sets.

Yes, and that's commendable.

For what it's worth, even that dealer will tell you he's just one of a number of dealers who is getting the Samsung, however. Samsung's strategy is to go to quality special retailers in major markets of which the retailer in question certainly is one (albeit not the only one).
post #6385 of 9447
I don't know if this has been penned by our very own 'Rogo', but this brand new Forbes article about the development of OLED TV by Mark Rogowsky is well worth a read...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/07/28/oled-finally-arrives-but-is-the-dream-tv-really-worth-it/
post #6386 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desk. View Post

I don't know if this has been penned by our very own 'Rogo', but this brand new Forbes article about the development of OLED TV by Mark Rogowsky is well worth a read...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/07/28/oled-finally-arrives-but-is-the-dream-tv-really-worth-it/

I can neither confirm nor deny the authorship of that article. wink.gifwink.gifwink.gif
post #6387 of 9447
^^^

nice article Mark

Mark smile.gif
post #6388 of 9447
the probability that the writer is not Rogo is minimal smile.gif
post #6389 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

mandatory 200 hour aging of all panels using Samsung recommended color slides before sending them to customers.
Mandatory aging with Samsung-supplied patterns? Are you sure this is not just them taking initiative to try and prevent some returns? If the sets required 200 hours run-in, surely Samsung would be doing it at the factory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogo 
The two sets (LG’s 55EA9800 and Samsung’s 55KNS9) are more similar than different.
For what it's worth, I'm hearing that the Samsung display is significantly better than the LG one.
post #6390 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

the probability that the writer is not Rogo is minimal smile.gif

Benefits of having deep background in this thread are clearly visible biggrin.gif. Found one sentence in need for a small correction: "Because the OLEDs are featherweights, with LG’s at just 38 pounds" but otherwise well written story smile.gif.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread