AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
581 - 600 of 3193 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #581
I don't think you can make linear price estimations because of the defective yield rate. If you are trying to cut 6 55" screens out of a sheet and only have to throw away one because of a defect, your cost per unit only slightly increases. If you are trying to make 2 77" screens and one is defective, you just doubled your cost. Yes, I know they would probably mitigate the lost by cutting them differently based on how they came out, but there has to be a premium placed the 65" and 77" because of the greater potential loss if the sheet is bad.

Of course what you are saying is correct (which is why I purposely used the term 'raw' in my post). On the other hand, if you simulate the yield, you will see that yield factors are secondary once the yield numbers reach 90% as LG is claiming on the 55".

Out of 100 sheets, there will be 600 raw 55" panels out of which 540 will be good, so 40 out of 100 panels will have a single defect.

3 65" panels uses about 71% of the area of 6 55" panels, so only about 28 of those defects will kill 1-out-of-3 65" panels and 100 sheets will produce about 272 good 65" panels (90.7%).

2 77"" panels uses about 65% of the area of 6 55" panels, so only about 26 of those defects will kill 1-out-of-2 77" panels and 100 sheets will produce about 174 good 77" panels (87%).

These number get worse quickly as 55" yields are brought down from the 90% level, which is why the only reason I can see the 77EC9800 being priced much above $10,000 is because LGs yields are far short of the 90% they have indicated and they don't really want to begin selling the 77EC9800 'for real' until yields stabilize at the 90% level (hence price prohibitively high to squelch demand).

Also, another factor is that 100% of the cost is not associated with the panel and most of the remaining costs (in electronics and such) is relatively fixed independently of screen size. If the OLED panel cost is only 75% of the TV cost, for example, 65" and 75" panels could be sold for even less at equivalent margin/profit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #582
That is assuming 100% yield. If you have one defect per sheet you lose 1 of 6 55" panels but perhaps 1 of 2 77" panels. Rumor has it the 77" could be priced in the 12-13k range. Everyone that is quoting $3500 for the 55" should check out pricing at their favorite forum sponsor.

1 defect per sheet would mean 83.3% yield and LG has indicated that their yields are now better than 90%. At those yields, there are only about 40 defects per 100 sheets and the yields of both 65" and 77" are close to 90% as well due to using only about 2/3 of the full sheet (so about 1/3 of those 40 defects land outside of any panel).

I just learned that the 55EC9300 can be had for $3000 here on the Forum and several are reporting picking it up from B&M retailers at that same price.

I'm expecting the 77EC9800 to be priced below $10,000 (and possibly as low as $9000) despite the rumors.

The only reason for this would be yields are not really close to 90% as LG has indicated (which would then mean the other prices could be unsupportable as well) or they are trying to make more profit off of customers for 77" OLEDs (which would be incredibly stupid this year when they are launching 'for real' and trying to take mindshare and market share from the plethora of low-cost, large-screen 4K LED/LCD offerings...).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #584
I am not saying the price is impossible. My only disagreement was with the linear price projection based on the 55". It has to be more costly per inch to make the larger sets because of defects. It could be they are simply willing to accept slimmer profit margins on the 65" and 77" right now because they expect relatively low sales at those prices and also expect fast improvements in manufacturing to push all cost quicker lower.

Either LG has achieved >90% yields on the 55EC9300 or they have not.

If they have not (and they are grandstanding/bullsh*tting), then of course everything you have said regarding accepting slimmer profit margins cold be correct.

But if they have, 90% on 55" equals only 40 defects on 100 sheets which translates into about 90% yields on the 65" and 77" as well due to using only about 2/3 of the area used by 6 55" panels (3 65" or 2 77").

It's not a linear projection, it just turns out that above 90% yield (on the 55"), yield works out to being about the same for all three screen sizes and so the math comes out to about the same as for 100% yield.

They are either already at 90% yield or are confident they are going to be there soon - there is no other way to explain why the 65EC9700 was priced as aggressively as it was (far lower than anyone expected).

If the 77EC9800 is priced above $10,000 (street price, I don't care about the MSRP), it means that they are not really at 90% yield yet and don't want to really begin selling the 77EC9800 until they do achieve yields of 90%+
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #585
If a 65" 4K Curved OLED will soon retail for +/- $6K, how come LG can not produce a FLAT, 65" 1080p OLED and sell it for $3K or less? It would be a no-brainer and could quickly become the new Kuro/VT/ZT60 successor we've all been waiting for...

And flattening a 65" OLED panel is going to cut it's cost in half exactly how???

There is no fundamental difference in the cost of the extra pixels - 65" 4K costs about the same to produce as 65" 1080p.

And flattening probably increases cost because mechanical support becomes more involved/costly than supporting a self-standing curve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #586
People talking $/diagonal inch just don't understand all that much.

Sytech meant 'linear' in terms of 'panels per sheet' without accounting for yield loss. No one (but you :) has said anything regarding $/"diagonal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
Must have flown over you. I was agreeing with sytech whilst also making a point about other discussion on AVS re/$/diagonal inch ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #588
Must have flown over you. I was agreeing with sytech whilst also making a point about other discussion on AVS re/$/diagonal inch ;)

My apologies, then.


Revenue per sheet is certainly the much more rational approach...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,701 Posts
And flattening a 65" OLED panel is going to cut it's cost in half exactly how???

There is no fundamental difference in the cost of the extra pixels - 65" 4K costs about the same to produce as 65" 1080p.

And flattening probably increases cost because mechanical support becomes more involved/costly than supporting a self-standing curve.
I think he just meant 4k cost a premium price. If they are selling a 4k 65" at that price, why not a cheaper 1080P set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
hey like i said if you have suggestions on settings you like me to use im welcome the store i work at doesnt care if play with the tv. but as far as i can tell the 9300 series is not all its made out to be. for the money id get a sony x900b
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #592
hey like i said if you have suggestions on settings you like me to use im welcome the store i work at doesnt care if play with the tv. but as far as i can tell the 9300 series is not all its made out to be. for the money id get a sony x900b

I'm not sure which size of X900B you are talking about, but aside from 4K versus 1080p and whatever screen size versus 55", are there any other areas where you feel the X900B is superior to the 55EC9300?


Also, if you are viewing in-store, see if you can go in after hours and watch both sets with the lights off - that might influence your opinion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
I'm not sure which size of X900B you are talking about, but aside from 4K versus 1080p and whatever screen size versus 55", are there any other areas where you feel the X900B is superior to the 55EC9300?


Also, if you are viewing in-store, see if you can go in after hours and watch both sets with the lights off - that might influence your opinion...
in terms of motion , price point and size
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
I have always posted on the LCD forum and now it looks like I will be on the OLED in the future.
I have two FALD TV'S and never was a fan of plasma(pulsing,ABL) now that OLED is coming down in price,I can think about joining in the excitement.
Nothing is new under the sun, this reminds me of HD first coming out and then 1080p.
When China starts making OLED the prices will drop fast,look out,it going to be a fun ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,440 Posts
in terms of motion , price point and size
As fafrd said, try to see an OLED in the dark. Trust me, whatever opinion you have now (if you can look at it objectively) will almost certainly change once you see it in a darkened environment.

Looking at it in BB, I thought it was very nice and I could see the potential. But having seen it at Robert's shootout, in both bright and dark ambient lighting, it was hard to escape the fact that there's nothing out there like it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,412 Posts
And flattening a 65" OLED panel is going to cut it's cost in half exactly how???

There is no fundamental difference in the cost of the extra pixels - 65" 4K costs about the same to produce as 65" 1080p.

And flattening probably increases cost because mechanical support becomes more involved/costly than supporting a self-standing curve.
Interesting, this is the first time I have seen it suggested that the curved screen was less expensive to make due to panel support considerations...

Personally I could not see the logic in buying a less expensive 1080p set now that 4k is becoming mainstream. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts
And flattening a 65" OLED panel is going to cut it's cost in half exactly how???
Not in half, but OLED's are fab'd flat and /then/ curved into place, no?

There is no fundamental difference in the cost of the extra pixels - 65" 4K costs about the same to produce as 65" 1080p.
That's been proven true for LCD, but I don't believe it's remotely true for OLED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #599
Not in half, but OLED's are fab'd flat and /then/ curved into place, no?
Yes, they are fabbed flat and then attached to a thin curved structure so that they are able to be effectively free-standing despite being so thin. Because the OLED panel itself provides no rigidity (note the bendable OLEDs coming in 2015 :), supporting it in a flat configuration requires more structure (and more cost) than the thin curved free-standing curved structure. The 8800 and its frame is a good example - more involved/expensive.

When they are done being fabbed flat, what you have is essentially a thin/flexible sheet of glass/plastic. A curve adds significant structural integrity to that bendable surface and without it is much more involved to support it in a 'flat' configuration. Think about trying to get a sheet of paper to stand up on one edge (only possible if it has been curved).

I have sympathy for LG with the curve now - they need to do it to keep OLED costs as low as possible. Samsung and their curved LED/LCDs is another story and I have no sympathy for them,


That's been proven true for LCD, but I don't believe it's remotely true for OLED.
Would be interested in any evidence to support your believe that it is 'not remotely true for OLED'

My evidence that it is true that yields for 1080p panels and 4K panels of equal size is roughly equal is the pricing that has already been established for the 65EC9700: $3000 for the 55EC9300 equates to $18000 raw sales revenue per Gen-8 production sheet (or $16,200 at 90% yield), while $6250 for the 65EC9700 equates to $18750 raw revenue per Gen-8 production sheet (or $16,688 at 90% yield).

If the yields to produce 4K OLED panels were significantly lower than the yields to produce same-sized 1080p OLED panels, then LG would have been forced to price the 65EC9700 far higher than they have (or could have priced the 55EC9300 far lower than they have, but I think we both know that that is very unlikely :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
another thing i noticed was there is alot of noise in the picture and artifacts no matter the setting. like i said before if someone has a list of settings for it to make it better let me know
 
581 - 600 of 3193 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top