RGB OLED is the future not WRGB - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 40Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 107 Old 12-15-2015, 01:29 PM
Member
 
ApexAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
People ought to stop re-posting what amounts to press releases and suggesting they are facts.

Note that the chart included has no axis labels. It therefore is borderline useless.

But even beyond there, here is what the hypesters claim about solution-processed OLED -- a technology researched for ~15 years but not even remotely viable to this day:

UBI Research’s 2015 Solution Process OLED Report forecast that solution process OLED panel market will actively begin mass production from 2018 and show approximately US$ 2,329 million in 2020.

So we are to believe that:

1) A technology that has never worked will begin to work in 2018 -- three years from now.

2) A technology that will begin working in 2018 will reach $2 billion in economic value in 2020 (if you accept #1 , #2 isn't even, but not overly hard either)

3) This technology will have a 43% cost advantage over the incumbent technology, which will -- by 2020 -- have been used for ~10-20 million TVs, have experienced massive learning-curve effects by then, and may well be used in literally hundreds of millions of smartphones, further pushing its scale economics/efficiency.

In short, even if the hypesters are correct and there is some long-run cost advantage to solution-processed OLED -- something not proved by anyone, incidentally -- we can reasonably conclude its volumes will perhaps match that of LG's WRGB (which I assume is how they intend to make mobile screens, though perhaps the white pixel is unnecessary?) by around 2023-25.

So some unproven technology may be dominant in a decade. I wonder what the predictions were about smartphone profits and market share in 2005.

I'm not sure you understand what that chart depicts. It doesn't need axis'.
ApexAZ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 107 Old 12-15-2015, 02:08 PM
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maybe ⅓ of the way from here to there.
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2589 Post(s)
Liked: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
You're missing my point (and so did fafrd). I'm not saying that WRGB OLED's color isn't better than LCD. It is and should be because the emitted light is controlled at the individual pixel level can completely turn off, i.e. there is no light leakage like with LCD. However, the point is with WRGB OLED the color is still created via white light passing through what amounts to a color filter. That is, the color is created by transmitting white light through a color filter the same as it is for LCD. That is why the two have a similar 'look' so far as color even though WRBG OLED has better color due to the perfect blacks.


Are you actually doubting that true RGB OLED has better color, more along the lines of plasma?
Ok, I'm sorry, I think I see what you mean now; but I really don't like the way you're expressing this. You are saying (I think?) that the bare red OLED is a tighter spectral emitter than the red filtered white is. This argument I can understand, but you'd need to show graphs to show this. BTW, I'm also a fan of "bare" RGB OLED's like the Samsung S9C, but mostly because I don't like having 4 subpixels.

If I'm reading you correctly on the tightness of the emitters, the section 2.2 in this page will bolster your position. I'm actually more of a fan of this than you might think.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #33 of 107 Old 12-16-2015, 01:42 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,169
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApexAZ View Post
I'm not sure you understand what that chart depicts.
I do.
Quote:
It doesn't need axis'.
It does.

But thanks.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 107 Old 12-16-2015, 02:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 6,431
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1751 Post(s)
Liked: 1036
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
Are you actually doubting that true RGB OLED has better color, more along the lines of plasma?
What possible difference does it make given no one sells televisions made with the technology and no one is likely to anytime soon?
kucharsk is offline  
post #35 of 107 Old 12-16-2015, 07:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
You're missing my point (and so did fafrd). I'm not saying that WRGB OLED's color isn't better than LCD. It is and should be because the emitted light is controlled at the individual pixel level can completely turn off, i.e. there is no light leakage like with LCD. However, the point is with WRGB OLED the color is still created via white light passing through what amounts to a color filter. That is, the color is created by transmitting white light through a color filter the same as it is for LCD. That is why the two have a similar 'look' so far as color even though WRBG OLED has better color due to the perfect blacks.

Are you actually doubting that true RGB OLED has better color, more along the lines of plasma?
I'm trying to understand your position here about filtering vs not. Is it your position that if LG got rid of the white sub-pixel, but still kept the other 3 sub-pixels the same (i.e. using filtering) they would have worse color than what you call true RGB OLED?

It seems to me that this mostly depends on the quality of the filters relative to the color primary points that are the targets, unless it is the shape and spatial light distribution within a sub-pixel that is claimed as a relevant difference between this true RGB OLED and an RGB OLED using white elements and filters. Each primary can have some leakage of the other 2 primaries and still hit P3 so the leakage of the other 2 primaries through a filter wouldn't seem to matter much to me if it was small enough to hit the colors space aimed for. REC.2020 would be another matter with the purity required of its primaries.

--Darin
darinp2 is offline  
post #36 of 107 Old 12-16-2015, 07:24 AM
Member
 
ApexAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
I do.


It does.

But thanks.

In the case of that stacked bar chart, you could put cost on the vertical axis, but it's not really necessary... It quickly depicts why the other one is cheaper by 43%. I don't personally need to know how much it costs to make an OLED panel, but you can easily look at that chart and see where the savings are occuring.


You could argue that the chart by itself is not enough to make an argument that it's actually 43% cheaper, but that's generally why charts are meant to suppliment larger sets of data.

Now whether or not that's true, which seems to be the crux of your argument, is debatable for sure. But that chart doesn't need an axis to get the point across. It already does with the 43% difference between the two.
ApexAZ is offline  
post #37 of 107 Old 12-16-2015, 09:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,218
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 628 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Ok, I'm sorry, I think I see what you mean now; but I really don't like the way you're expressing this. You are saying (I think?) that the bare red OLED is a tighter spectral emitter than the red filtered white is.

Yes, that could largely be the reason.
RWetmore is offline  
post #38 of 107 Old 12-16-2015, 09:55 AM
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 992
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I thought samsung looked different than lg because of the scaning method was different on each and one did black frame insertion?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
David_B is offline  
post #39 of 107 Old 12-16-2015, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,218
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 628 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
I'm trying to understand your position here about filtering vs not. Is it your position that if LG got rid of the white sub-pixel, but still kept the other 3 sub-pixels the same (i.e. using filtering) they would have worse color than what you call true RGB OLED?

Yes. Or at least native RGB emitting pixels (i.e. without RGB color filtering) would or should be a little better and look more natural. That is, give that uncanny organic looking color that plasma has (which is true native RGB). Mind you, I'm not claiming that doing it using R,G and B filters can't be done well, as I'm sure it can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
It seems to me that this mostly depends on the quality of the filters relative to the color primary points that are the targets, unless it is the shape and spatial light distribution within a sub-pixel that is claimed as a relevant difference between this true RGB OLED and an RGB OLED using white elements and filters. Each primary can have some leakage of the other 2 primaries and still hit P3 so the leakage of the other 2 primaries through a filter wouldn't seem to matter much to me if it was small enough to hit the colors space aimed for. REC.2020 would be another matter with the purity required of its primaries.

--Darin

That could be. Note, that I've heard that test patters don't show or really reveal in any way the organic look of plasma, and that LCD sets can measure just as accurately. I think it's something about the look many of us are seeing that's created by native colored glowing phosphors. I would think native emitting RGB OLEDs, like the 2013 Samsung, would have a similar look as plasma for color, and that's what seems to be being reported by a quite a few people. It's important to note that every display tech has a certain 'look' to it so to speak.
RWetmore is offline  
post #40 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 12:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,524
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1100 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
That is, give that uncanny organic looking color that plasma has (which is true native RGB).
I don't think that adjective "uncanny" conveys what you intend, here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley where uncanny is characterized this way: "when features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural beings, it causes a response of revulsion among some observers."

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #41 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 01:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,574
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
Are you actually doubting that true RGB OLED has better color, more along the lines of plasma?
The correct term here would be "spectral power distribution" as color gamuts of WRGB OLEDs and RGB OLEDs can be the same but still have different looks due to metamerism failure. As to similarity in appearence of WRGB OLEDs and WLED LCDs, their spectral power distributions graphs kinda look similar...





Some more graphs:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lc...l#post29984289
Elix is offline  
post #42 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 01:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,169
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApexAZ View Post

You could argue that the chart by itself is not enough to make an argument that it's actually 43% cheaper, but that's generally why charts are meant to suppliment larger sets of data.

Now whether or not that's true, which seems to be the crux of your argument, is debatable for sure. But that chart doesn't need an axis to get the point across. It already does with the 43% difference between the two.
You are entirely missing the point.

I could write a sentence that says, "It will be 43% cheaper" and that's equally valuable to a fake chart that magically says "I'm 43% cheaper" without defining anything related to that.

The chart is devoid of information while pretending to convey information. It's not terribly different from Donald Trump in that regard.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #43 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 03:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,218
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 628 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I don't think that adjective "uncanny" conveys what you intend, here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley where uncanny is characterized this way: "when features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural beings, it causes a response of revulsion among some observers."

OK, uncanny is probably not the best word usage. The point is it's somewhat elusive as to the reason why it has that organic look, as I don't think it's directly revealed in measurements and test patterns.
RWetmore is offline  
post #44 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 09:07 AM
Member
 
ApexAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
You are entirely missing the point.

I could write a sentence that says, "It will be 43% cheaper" and that's equally valuable to a fake chart that magically says "I'm 43% cheaper" without defining anything related to that.

The chart is devoid of information while pretending to convey information. It's not terribly different from Donald Trump in that regard.

I am not missing the point at all. In fact, I sort of agreed with you. The chart by itself is not enough information, but if you read the articles, you'd see that UBI published a report. Not just a chart, but a report, of which this chart is included as supplimental information. I make and present charts all day long and it's not like I'd throw this slide up and say hey this is 43% cheaper and go sit down lol.


The chart is very clear: Substantially less OLED material + no color filter = less materials required to produce the panel. The chart breaks up the cost by weight and does an excellent job of depicting exactly where the reductions occur. It does have labels, but no axis is required to make the point. You are acting as if this chart was released with no deeper dive into the "why" they came to this conclusion and I'm saying it's not meant to do that.


Now, just because 43% fewer materials are needed to produce these OLED sets doesn't necessarily mean that will translate into a 43% reduction in cost, because of various other things, such as R&D cost, perhaps changes to manufacturing that might actually cost more per OLED node, or whatever. But factoring that out and looking at straight material costs, it's pretty easy to see how they think it will reduce by 43%. So I'm actually agreeing with you to some extent, but charts like this aren't usually meant to tell the whole story. It's more of an illustration to enhance the story.

Last edited by ApexAZ; 12-17-2015 at 09:12 AM.
ApexAZ is offline  
post #45 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 01:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Ok, I'm sorry, I think I see what you mean now; but I really don't like the way you're expressing this. You are saying (I think?) that the bare red OLED is a tighter spectral emitter than the red filtered white is. This argument I can understand, but you'd need to show graphs to show this. BTW, I'm also a fan of "bare" RGB OLED's like the Samsung S9C, but mostly because I don't like having 4 subpixels.

If I'm reading you correctly on the tightness of the emitters, the section 2.2 in this page will bolster your position. I'm actually more of a fan of this than you might think.
Seems to be at least 2 or 3 topics weaving themselves together on this thread, but whatever .

On the original posters mis-use of the word 'transmit' when used with color filters, filters to not really 'transmit' anything, they passively filter out (block) or pass through light based on frequency (and without any control). As has already been stated, LCDs are transmissive because they actively either transmit light of block light based on electronic control (an electronic lightvalve).

If there is any difference in the light coming from an RGB OLED and a WOLED, it boils down to spectral content (as you pointed out).

very narrow/tight spectral characteristics of the RGB primaries is the most important criterion to being able to expand color gamut.

One way to tighten the spectral narrowness of RGB primaries is by using quantum dots (film or otherwise) and this is how LED/LCD are getting their color gamut a up to full DCI-P3 and beyond.

The current crop of LG WOLEDs is only able to achieve 90% DCI-P3, and this is almost certainly the reason why. Next year's crop is supposed to achieve 100% DCI P3 and this may be through a different composition of the WOLED layer that emits a 'purer' white light composed of narrower RGB primaries.

As a fall-back, a WOLED backplane can always be covered with QDF as well, so if cost is not object, there is no color gamut achievement that LED/LCD can achieve that WOLED cannot achieve as well (subject to brightness limitations).

So yes, RGB OLEDs may have the ability to produce narrower RGB primaries, and because of this, wider color gamut than current-generation WOLEDs.

My only issue with this interpretation of the OPs statement that WOLED is more 'LED/LCD-like' than RGB OLED is that 99.999% of content is based on Rec.709 where the benefits of wider color gamut are invisible (unobservable), so I don't believe that can be what he was trying to express.

My suspicion is that he is referring to the 'digital-versus-analog' image quality attributes of plasma versus LCD, which boils down to PWM (plasma) versus sample-and-hold (LCD). On that basis, WOLED looks more 'LCD-like' than 'plasma-like' because it is also sample-and-hold. But RGB OLED is also sample-and-hold, so it will look just as 'LCD-like' as WOLED on that score.

If the OP is hoping that an RGB OLED is going to look more like his plasma (or CRT ) than an LCD, I'm afraid he is in for dissapoinment.

Now if the OP is hoping that an RGB OLED may display Inside Out closer to the Rec.2020 color gamut it has been mastered in than a current-generation WOLED, their desire may hold some merit (but again, that has nothing to do with emissive versus transmissive).
homogenic and Magnesus like this.

Last edited by fafrd; 12-17-2015 at 01:20 PM.
fafrd is offline  
post #46 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 03:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2377 Post(s)
Liked: 1382
According C|NETs Ty Pendlebury and David Katzmaier using pure colors, QD, RGB LEDs, results in a more vibrant and real picture.

''Is there anything to the notion that using pure colors, either QD or RGB LEDs, results in a more realistic image? Anecdotally, I'd say yes. In own testing I've always found that displays with separate red, green, and blue colors (be it RGB LED or QD), just had something more vibrant and real with their image. This is after calibration to Rec 709 (the HD standard). So as far as measurements were concerned, they had the same colors as any other TV. Those colors just looked better. Since this was across multiple brands and technologies, it wasn't just a fluke.''

http://www.cnet.com/news/quantum-dot...cd-tvs-better/

..that does not make QD or RBG LED LCd's less LCd like.
8mile13 is offline  
post #47 of 107 Old 12-17-2015, 11:50 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,169
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApexAZ View Post
I am not missing the point at all. In fact, I sort of agreed with you. The chart by itself is not enough information, but if you read the articles, you'd see that UBI published a report. Not just a chart, but a report, of which this chart is included as supplimental information. I make and present charts all day long and it's not like I'd throw this slide up and say hey this is 43% cheaper and go sit down lol.
But that's more or less what they did...
Quote:
The chart is very clear: Substantially less OLED material + no color filter = less materials required to produce the panel. The chart breaks up the cost by weight and does an excellent job of depicting exactly where the reductions occur. It does have labels, but no axis is required to make the point. You are acting as if this chart was released with no deeper dive into the "why" they came to this conclusion and I'm saying it's not meant to do that.
The problem is these are fake numbers. They have absolutely no basis in reality. They are made up. Which is why the chart is based on these fake numbers. Not data.
Quote:
Now, just because 43% fewer materials are needed to produce these OLED sets doesn't necessarily mean that will translate into a 43% reduction in cost, because of various other things, such as R&D cost, perhaps changes to manufacturing that might actually cost more per OLED node, or whatever.
It might not translate into any cost reduction. They might cost more. Those charts are fake. Ignore them
Quote:
But factoring that out and looking at straight material costs, it's pretty easy to see how they think it will reduce by 43%. So I'm actually agreeing with you to some extent, but charts like this aren't usually meant to tell the whole story. It's more of an illustration to enhance the story.
It enhances their fake narrative, which is fostered by vendors with an agenda.

You can't claim a technology that doesn't exist will someday be 43% cheaper than a technology that does exist and is moving down the learning curve. We've had this conversation for a decade plus here.

If there is a mass-produced solution-processed OLED, we can talk about how cost advantages in it from the initial mass production to multiple moves down the curve might provide an advantage over the actual, current curve for WRGB OLED. Until then, this is a bunch of nonsensical handwaving.

For all we're excited about OLED making it into price bands LCD is, it's still years from being "cheaper" than LCD -- if it ever will be. And for a decade, we were told it was "inherently cheaper". When there is a 60-inch OLED TV for $500 we'll know that's true. Until then, it's marketing and hype.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #48 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 03:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,218
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 628 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Seems to be at least 2 or 3 topics weaving themselves together on this thread, but whatever .

On the original posters mis-use of the word 'transmit' when used with color filters, filters to not really 'transmit' anything, they passively filter out (block) or pass through light based on frequency (and without any control). As has already been stated, LCDs are transmissive because they actively either transmit light of block light based on electronic control (an electronic lightvalve).

If there is any difference in the light coming from an RGB OLED and a WOLED, it boils down to spectral content (as you pointed out).

very narrow/tight spectral characteristics of the RGB primaries is the most important criterion to being able to expand color gamut.

One way to tighten the spectral narrowness of RGB primaries is by using quantum dots (film or otherwise) and this is how LED/LCD are getting their color gamut a up to full DCI-P3 and beyond.

The current crop of LG WOLEDs is only able to achieve 90% DCI-P3, and this is almost certainly the reason why. Next year's crop is supposed to achieve 100% DCI P3 and this may be through a different composition of the WOLED layer that emits a 'purer' white light composed of narrower RGB primaries.

As a fall-back, a WOLED backplane can always be covered with QDF as well, so if cost is not object, there is no color gamut achievement that LED/LCD can achieve that WOLED cannot achieve as well (subject to brightness limitations).

So yes, RGB OLEDs may have the ability to produce narrower RGB primaries, and because of this, wider color gamut than current-generation WOLEDs.

My only issue with this interpretation of the OPs statement that WOLED is more 'LED/LCD-like' than RGB OLED is that 99.999% of content is based on Rec.709 where the benefits of wider color gamut are invisible (unobservable), so I don't believe that can be what he was trying to express.

My suspicion is that he is referring to the 'digital-versus-analog' image quality attributes of plasma versus LCD, which boils down to PWM (plasma) versus sample-and-hold (LCD). On that basis, WOLED looks more 'LCD-like' than 'plasma-like' because it is also sample-and-hold. But RGB OLED is also sample-and-hold, so it will look just as 'LCD-like' as WOLED on that score.

If the OP is hoping that an RGB OLED is going to look more like his plasma (or CRT ) than an LCD, I'm afraid he is in for dissapoinment.

Now if the OP is hoping that an RGB OLED may display Inside Out closer to the Rec.2020 color gamut it has been mastered in than a current-generation WOLED, their desire may hold some merit (but again, that has nothing to do with emissive versus transmissive).

Again, you're missing my point. I and others are talking about how the color looks -- not other components of the picture. Yes, because both OLED and LCD use sample and hold, they will look similar, especially in regards to motion handling. But I'm talking about the color quality. Specifically, the perceived color quality. People have reported that the native RGB OLED, i.e. like the 2013 Samsung, have the same or very similar organic looking color quality as plasma, where as LG's WRGB do not and have color that looks more like that on an LCD; or that the LGs look like an LCD with perfect blacks.

Last edited by RWetmore; 12-18-2015 at 03:52 AM.
RWetmore is offline  
post #49 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 05:35 AM
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maybe ⅓ of the way from here to there.
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2589 Post(s)
Liked: 2312
I don't think I've seen an army of folks making the claim that the stack+filter OLED design is "LCD-like" in color. Anyone else see this?
Magnesus likes this.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #50 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 07:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2377 Post(s)
Liked: 1382
..some folks made such comment.
8mile13 is offline  
post #51 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 08:12 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I found two articles on www.smartoffice.com.au that I thought were interesting regarding LG OLED. I am not proposing either is 100% factual and I don't know anything about the validity of this website.

http://www.smartoffice.com.au/techno...-up-to-be.aspx

http://www.smartoffice.com.au/techno...antum-dot.aspx
mhrir is offline  
post #52 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 08:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Here is the trascript of:
Experts Claim That OLED TV Technology Is Expensive, & Not What It's Cracked Up To Be


By David Richards | Friday | 20/11/2015

LG Display is set to tip $4 Billion dollars into a new OLED fabrication plant, market leader Samsung, Panasonic Sony along with several other brands, claim that OLED is not the future for high quality TV reproduction, which is why they are sticking with alternate technologies.

Sony claim that there are too many problems with the production of OLED technology and that OLED TV's have reliability issues and are costly for what you get.

Reliability issues combined with the high costs of ramping up production of OLED panels has most manufacturers investing heavily to improve 4K UHD technology by widening the colour gamut and employing either Quantum Dot or a similar film technology (Nano-Crystal in Samsung's case) to enhance and solidify colour.

The curved screen also helps to minimize the effects of contrast degradation from side angles in LED backlit UHD TVs.

LG who are one of the few Companies flogging OLED TV's is struggling to shift volume sales of their LG 65" 4K Ultra HD OLED 3D Capable Smart Curved TV which is selling at Harvey Norman for $8,495.

Earlier in the year this TV was selling for $9,950. The Company did not make one of these TV's available for a side by side comparison.

At CES 2016 there is set to be a lot of debate around HDR 4K content.

Interest in HDR (high dynamic range) 4K technology has resulted in a wider discussion on whether OLED TV displays will be able to handle the display characteristics of this new technology as it arrives.

OLED is expensive for what you get and while it delivers a great picture it is hard to differentiate between a TV that is delivering an SUHD image at half the price.

According to the TV expert's OLED, while being extraordinarily good at black reproduction and motion clarity due to its ability to actually turn off its organic LEDs (OLEDS), isn't quite going to be capable of delivering the same brightness that normal LED TVs can provide.

Since one of the crucial components of HDR's quality is its expected brightness, this will possibly make the powerful technology of OLED surprisingly deficient at delivering the extraordinary contrast of HDR when compared to normal LED TVs.

In turn, this could affect these TVs ability to deliver the expanded luminance and colour range that HDR promises.

According to Danny Tack, an expert from Philip's European division questioned by Forbes magazine in a recent blog post, the wide colour gamut and much brighter light output of LCD are features that have a better position to meet the demands of HDR than OLED does.

So far, as Tack explained to Forbes, OLED (and its primary developer LG) have to first solve this light output issue before they can really meet the standard of HDR and Tack doesn't believe that this will happen for at least two or three more years.

The point of this was underscored by some raw numbers behind both technologies: Namely, while 4K LCD TVs have managed to increase light output from 500 to 800 nits in just the last 12 months between 2014 and now, OLED has only increased its capacity by 50 nits.

While this is understandable given the revolutionary and difficult to manufacture nature of TVs with organic light emitting diodes, it also shows how the technology might face problems with new HDR technology set to be released at CES 2016,

Samsung has also weighed in on the issue and claimed that force driving the brightness of OED panels to levels that are bright enough to handle HDR will likely also reduce those panels' life spans dramatically. Given the very high retail prices of OLED 4K TVs, this is something that potential owners definitely won't want to hear as they get ready for HDR content to arrive from different 4K transmission services.
mhrir is offline  
post #53 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 08:15 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 26
And here is the transcript of:
LG Facing Dilemma Over Future OLED TV Production As Samsung Strips Share With Quantum Dot

By David Richards | Wednesday | 25/11/2015

LG Display is facing a dilemma, on one hand they want to invest in OLED display technology, while history is telling them that there are massive risks investing in a technology that only a limited few manufacturers are supporting for large TV and commercial displays.

Right now LG is tossing up whether to invest in a new A$5 Billion-dollar OLED manufacturing plant.

To do so they need the support of other manufacturers who at this stage are reluctant to support a technology that is costly to produce.

A litmus test of what could go wrong can be found in the history of plasma.

Billed as the next big thing in display technology plasma display screens like OLED display panels were costly to produce, they also had a high manufacturing failure rate.
And like LG OLED panels they were expensive with early plasma panels from the likes of Sony, Hitachi, Fujitsu, NEC, and Pioneer costing up to $20,000 for a 42" display screen.

Very quickly the likes of Pioneer, Fujitsu, NEC and Hitachi, companies who had invested tens of millions in plasma plants got out of the plasma TV market after racking up billions in losses.

Eventually all key manufacturers dumped plasma in favour of LED, then LCD and now Ultra HD display technology.

LG Australia who are selling their 65" top end OLED for $8,999 which is $1,959 more expensive than the same OLED TV being sold in the USA is desperate to grow their OLED TV share.

The only problem is that because of the small numbers involved the Company is being stopped by LG Korea from investing in brand marketing to educate consumers on the difference between the OLED that LG is offering and the cheaper Super Ultra High Definition technology being offered by the likes of Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic.

In fact, many consumers are struggling to spot the difference between what Samsung is offering as their premium display technology and LG's expensive OLED TV Technology

Last week LG Display announced that they are looking to pour billions into a new OLED plant. Construction is set to commence in March 2016.

The announcement comes in the same week that LG Display declared a Q3 profit slide of 30 per cent as the result of weaker demand for consumer electronics devices.
LG Display, which counts Apple one of its major clients, has moved to shore up production of its flagship OLED, as well as quantum dot-based panels which is their protection if OLED falls over as a premium TV technology.

The LG OLED move, is an attempt to compete more effectively with the company's bigger rival Samsung, which is pushing harder in the quantum dot TV sector which some say is an equal quality to OLED without the manufacturing risks.

The problem for LG is that they need to invest in a plant that is capable of producing both large, medium and small-sized OLED display panels and some analysts are saying that they don't have the capital to do this without partners.

last month, LG Display started flattening the land for a plant which they claim can build Gen.11 Display.

Among those who turned up to inspect the location for the new plant were Samsung TV executives.

Key to whether LG stays with OLED and the production of multi sized panels is Apple who want OLED panels for their next iPhone.

China's BOE has already announced its decision to invest in Gen 10.5 LCD panels a move which analysts claim leaves South Korean businesses with no choice but to also consider investing in large-sized LCD panels.

Korean media is claiming that LG Display does not have enough funds to actually carry out a full investment program for the new plant especially as sales of LG TV's is falling.

Financial industries are estimating that funds and cashable assets that LG Display have will be about US$1.38 billion this year which is up from the US$765 million which was on their books last year.

The Korean media claim that LG Display lacks the capability to carry out any large-sized investment in OLED and new generation LED production facilities.

The Korean Herald said recently that 'because investments in Gen.8 LCD facilities are progressing considerably in China, LG Display needs to examine how much profit it can gain from large-sized LCD hereafter. It is also necessary to invest in OLED if it wants to expand markets and increase gap between itself and China in technologies.

It's estimated that the new plant if it goes ahead will take two years to complete.

Executive Director Lee Bang Soo of LG Display's Management Support Group said when questioned about their strategy and why LG was starting construction of a display panel production plant without the full investment to finish the plant being in place he said.

"There was a similar incident in the past when we prepared land and built our P9 facility. This is an action taken to quickly respond to next-generation investment, and we are planning to vote on this matter during a board meeting that will take place at the end of this month."

He added "However it is still premature to decide on detailed direction of investment in next-generation facility during this board meeting."
mhrir is offline  
post #54 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 08:47 AM
Member
 
ApexAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
But that's more or less what they did...


The problem is these are fake numbers. They have absolutely no basis in reality. They are made up. Which is why the chart is based on these fake numbers. Not data.


It might not translate into any cost reduction. They might cost more. Those charts are fake. Ignore them


It enhances their fake narrative, which is fostered by vendors with an agenda.

You can't claim a technology that doesn't exist will someday be 43% cheaper than a technology that does exist and is moving down the learning curve. We've had this conversation for a decade plus here.

If there is a mass-produced solution-processed OLED, we can talk about how cost advantages in it from the initial mass production to multiple moves down the curve might provide an advantage over the actual, current curve for WRGB OLED. Until then, this is a bunch of nonsensical handwaving.

For all we're excited about OLED making it into price bands LCD is, it's still years from being "cheaper" than LCD -- if it ever will be. And for a decade, we were told it was "inherently cheaper". When there is a 60-inch OLED TV for $500 we'll know that's true. Until then, it's marketing and hype.

I agree there is definitely speculation involved up until the technology can be proved.
ApexAZ is offline  
post #55 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 08:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
thebishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 238 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhrir View Post
Here is the trascript of:
Experts Claim That OLED TV Technology Is Expensive, & Not What It's Cracked Up To Be


By David Richards | Friday | 20/11/2015

LG Display is set to tip $4 Billion dollars into a new OLED fabrication plant, market leader Samsung, Panasonic Sony along with several other brands, claim that OLED is not the future for high quality TV reproduction, which is why they are sticking with alternate technologies.

Sony claim that there are too many problems with the production of OLED technology and that OLED TV's have reliability issues and are costly for what you get.

Reliability issues combined with the high costs of ramping up production of OLED panels has most manufacturers investing heavily to improve 4K UHD technology by widening the colour gamut and employing either Quantum Dot or a similar film technology (Nano-Crystal in Samsung's case) to enhance and solidify colour.

The curved screen also helps to minimize the effects of contrast degradation from side angles in LED backlit UHD TVs.

LG who are one of the few Companies flogging OLED TV's is struggling to shift volume sales of their LG 65" 4K Ultra HD OLED 3D Capable Smart Curved TV which is selling at Harvey Norman for $8,495.

Earlier in the year this TV was selling for $9,950. The Company did not make one of these TV's available for a side by side comparison.

At CES 2016 there is set to be a lot of debate around HDR 4K content.

Interest in HDR (high dynamic range) 4K technology has resulted in a wider discussion on whether OLED TV displays will be able to handle the display characteristics of this new technology as it arrives.

OLED is expensive for what you get and while it delivers a great picture it is hard to differentiate between a TV that is delivering an SUHD image at half the price.

According to the TV expert's OLED, while being extraordinarily good at black reproduction and motion clarity due to its ability to actually turn off its organic LEDs (OLEDS), isn't quite going to be capable of delivering the same brightness that normal LED TVs can provide.

Since one of the crucial components of HDR's quality is its expected brightness, this will possibly make the powerful technology of OLED surprisingly deficient at delivering the extraordinary contrast of HDR when compared to normal LED TVs.

In turn, this could affect these TVs ability to deliver the expanded luminance and colour range that HDR promises.

According to Danny Tack, an expert from Philip's European division questioned by Forbes magazine in a recent blog post, the wide colour gamut and much brighter light output of LCD are features that have a better position to meet the demands of HDR than OLED does.

So far, as Tack explained to Forbes, OLED (and its primary developer LG) have to first solve this light output issue before they can really meet the standard of HDR and Tack doesn't believe that this will happen for at least two or three more years.

The point of this was underscored by some raw numbers behind both technologies: Namely, while 4K LCD TVs have managed to increase light output from 500 to 800 nits in just the last 12 months between 2014 and now, OLED has only increased its capacity by 50 nits.

While this is understandable given the revolutionary and difficult to manufacture nature of TVs with organic light emitting diodes, it also shows how the technology might face problems with new HDR technology set to be released at CES 2016,

Samsung has also weighed in on the issue and claimed that force driving the brightness of OED panels to levels that are bright enough to handle HDR will likely also reduce those panels' life spans dramatically. Given the very high retail prices of OLED 4K TVs, this is something that potential owners definitely won't want to hear as they get ready for HDR content to arrive from different 4K transmission services.
Notice how these comments are from LG's competitors who will have their clocks cleaned IF LG can get their act together re: panel size and costs.
Magnesus likes this.
thebishman is offline  
post #56 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 09:09 AM
Member
 
ApexAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebishman View Post
Notice how these comments are from LG's competitors who will have their clocks cleaned IF LG can get their act together re: panel size and costs.

It's a big if based on the current slew of issues plaguing the technology.
ApexAZ is offline  
post #57 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 01:39 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,169
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 2197
There is a part of the above doomsayer articles that is very correct and remains the terrifying thing for LG and the future of OLED TV (not OLED mobile, where OLED will win not just the high end, but a majority of the market in the now foreseeable future).

And that one thing is the correct claim that a one-company ecosystem is pricey, fraught and ultimately unlikely to be successful.

LG should license the technology behind WRGB to anyone willing to build a fabrication plant at this point. They need others to have skin in the game. LG has leadership. It will have invented the technology, it can win a big share. But there has never been a chance for a single company to dominate production of TVs, let alone expensive TVs, with the mid-tier balance sheet LG has.

Get someone to fabricate the panels as well and magically that company will not only stop trashing them, it will also help lower the cost of your panels as well as theirs. The ecosystem would grow faster and that matters.

It also matters for shelf space, mindshare, FUD-based marketing, etc. But I doubt those are important because I do not believe consumers are going to place value on HDR, even though AVSers might. And on other key picture-quality attributes 2015 OLEDs are already winning easily. By 2017, I doubt any category other than the useless "eye-searing brightness" one will belong to LCD.
homogenic and Magnesus like this.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #58 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 02:26 PM
Senior Member
 
joys_R_us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Berlin - Germany
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 96
It will be funny to watch Samsung in 2016 making a 180 degrees turn and pushing the OLEDs as the best ever TV technology once they have got their act together in the production of OLEDs. I guess they must be panicking now seeing the development of the OLED panels at LG.
Magnesus likes this.
joys_R_us is offline  
post #59 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 07:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhrir View Post
"The curved screen also helps to minimize the effects of contrast degradation from side angles in LED backlit UHD TVs."
Seems to me that it helps on the far part of the screen and hurts on the closer side, with a statement like this being spin. This whole thing reminds me of when Steve Jobs was trashing tablets any smaller than the original iPad.

--Darin
Magnesus likes this.

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #60 of 107 Old 12-18-2015, 11:37 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,169
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
Seems to me that it helps on the far part of the screen and hurts on the closer side, with a statement like this being spin. This whole thing reminds me of when Steve Jobs was trashing tablets any smaller than the original iPad.
It's a bit Jobsian with respect to the fact that once they sell flat in larger numbers they'll forget they said this.

It's not Jobsian in that he tended to trash something (like styli) that were poorly implemented at the time, waiting till Apple felt they could get those things right. It's unclear how improving side viewing for part of the screen while degrading it for the other part -- as curved screens do -- qualifies as most of Jobs' Reality Distortion Field remarks.

Subtle difference, to be sure, but one worth mentioning. If anything, Jobs might have said, "See a curved screen and you know they're doing it wrong."

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off