AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 539 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is an omnibus threat for all things related to technology advancement of MicroLED/microLED displays, devices, etc.

In the spirit of the epic OLED thread and with the usual caveats about it being years before we're likely to see consumer products... Bring it on!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
[reserved #1 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
[reserved # 2]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
[reserved #3 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
[reserved # 4]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
[reserved #5 ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
OK, some posts held for things like product links (when they exist), especially important primers / research notes, perhaps a "what the heck is microLED?" backgrounder.

With Samsung's announcement of an almost microLED video wall at 146 inches, and continued rumors of Apple starting off with perhaps watch displays, there is no doubt heavyweights are already circling this technology. Even LG, which is on a roll with TV OLED, has expressed some interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
I'm pretty sure they will beat out all others in terms of performance/PQ. But price...pricing will need to come way way down to be competitive for home use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
I've asked mods to close the discussion I opened and thought about posting this here. I hope it's appropriate.

I ask because I see that LED still have half-life times given in their specifications. As such, the risk for burn in/image retention could be there. Or is their half-life so long that it's not a risk anymore? Do we have any information about this?

A quick search gave me this: http://focusdigitaldisplays.com/2011/11/09/100000-hour-led-halflife-rating-important/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
I've asked mods to close the discussion I opened and thought about posting this here. I hope it's appropriate.

I ask because I see that LED still have half-life times given in their specifications. As such, the risk for burn in/image retention could be there. Or is their half-life so long that it's not a risk anymore? Do we have any information about this?

A quick search gave me this: http://focusdigitaldisplays.com/2011/11/09/100000-hour-led-halflife-rating-important/
This might interest you...

"Perhaps one of the biggest reasons the desire for OLED lighting panels has increased is their flexibility. OLED panels are paper thin and pliable, giving them the unique capability to transform into almost any shape. For instance, OLEDs could be placed across an entire wall or used for whimsical lighting displays. OLEDs can also be any color; soft white light transmitted from OLEDs is comparable to sunlight, giving them a CRI of 90 or greater, a significant difference since most LED lights do not exceed 90 CRI. Another major difference in OLEDs is that they generate very little heat, less than LEDs, making the need for heat sinks and diffusers obsolete.

Drawbacks

Before deciding you can’t live without OLED lighting, you may want to check the price tag. One panel of OLED light can retail up to nearly $200 while a futuristic flat paneled OLED chandelier is nearly $10,000. Beyond a costly price tag OLEDs currently have a shorter lumen life than most LEDs. For example the LG Chem OLED light panels have 40,000 hours of luminance whereas some traditional LEDs can have as many as 100,000 lumen hours.

Currently, OLEDs cannot achieve the same amount of brightness produced by most LED lamps. Where it may take 3 or 4 LED lights to illuminate your kitchen, it could take twice as many OLED panels, and for up to ten times the cost. Also, because of their organic compounds and their sensitivity to heat OLEDs are not as durable as LEDs, making it unlikely that current generations can ever be used as traditional screw-in light bulbs.

OLEDs are definitely an interesting and impeccable new form of lighting. However, they still face issues in cost and efficiency. As prices continue to lower, LED lighting technology continues to advance as the most energy-efficient form of light. Maybe it’s a little too soon to go organic but the possibilities for the future are hopeful. What are your thoughts on Organic LED and LED lighting? Feel free to comment, or drop us a line on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, LinkedIn, Pinterest or Instagram!

https://blog.1000bulbs.com/home/oled-vs-led-lighting

Led's are improving every year, but so are Oled's. Who knows how each will advance...
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorman42

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts
Most of the advantage of Micro-LEDs will be in small screens such as phones and tablets. They will not be able to upscale to larger displays. They do have advantages over OLED in small displays.

http://www.eenewsled.com/news/6000ppi-micro-led-displays-beat-oleds-cost
Exactly correct.

Qouting from the article you referenced:

"VueReal will offer two types of micro-LED displays, one with sub-micron pixels for AR and VR micro-display applications, and for larger displays a technology with pixels structured and pitched only a couple of microns apart.."

2 pixels correspond to a 4K dispkay which is 017" tall X 0.3" wide.

Even if assume that they are referring to subpixels rather than pixels, 2 um subpixel spacing correspnods to a display which is 0.9" wide X 0.5" tall.

For watches (as Apple is aiming at), this is all well and good. But usng the same term of 'Microled' for large screen displays based on fundamentally different manufactiring processes (and challenges) is as Samsungesque as their hijacking of the term QLED...

A 55" 4K display requires pixels which are 317um apart - to call this 'MicroLED' and lump it in with small wafer-scale displays with LED pixels which are 1-2 microns apart is the hieght of fudgification.

Samsung's recently-announced 'Wall' display is 8K over 146", or 421um between pixels.

There is an enormous gap between 1-2um and 300-400um (in both viability and cost).

I'd suggest we make a distinction between 'Small-screen MicroLED displays' (which are possible to manufacture at the wafer-level and should be economical) and 'Large-screen MictoLED displays' (which are primarily a packaging/handling/assembly manfacturibg challenge and face ,uch greater barriers to ever be cost competitive for consumer TVs).

33um is the dividing line between 'Micron-scale' and 'Millimeter-scale' (on a log scale), so that is at least a first suggestion for how to distinguish between 'Small-screen Micro-LED' and 'Large-screen Micro-LED'...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
An article I liked about the advantages of microLED:

The main advantages of using gallium nitride LEDs as pixels are brightness and efficiency. OLED displays, such as what you find on Samsung smartphones, typically throw off about 1,000 candelas per square meter, or nits, Virey explains. MicroLEDs should give you 100,000 nits or even 1 million. “Clearly that’s overkill for a smartphone,” he says, “but it’s valuable for augmented reality and head-up displays,” where the image is competing with the brightness of daylight.
The other draw, efficiency, is no less impressive. LCDs and OLED displays are only around 5 to 7 percent efficient. But the efficiency of gallium nitride LEDs for lighting is closer to 70 percent. Efficiency degrades as you make the LEDs tinier and tinier, Anania points out, but even a 15-percent-efficient display “would be a revolution” because it would free VR systems from power cords and hugely extend smart-watch and smartphone battery life.
Right now, the revolution seems to be coming in two general flavors. Plessey and startups such as Lumiode and JB Displays are chasing what are called monolithic displays. In these, the *gallium nitride LED pixels are produced in place on a chip and then connected as a unit to an array of silicon transistors that switch them on and off. The problem here is that it doesn’t make sense to build displays much bigger than a centimeter or two. It’d be a waste of silicon, which is expensive, and of *gallium nitride, which is even more expensive.
The second approach to microLED displays seems absurd on the face of it, yet it has the potential to work in smart-watch screens and larger displays. It involves dicing up wafers into individual microLEDs, making sure they’re all working perfectly, and transferring each one to its proper place on the display (not necessarily in that order). A 42-mm Apple Watch has roughly 120,000 pixels, each one of three colors, so that might mean some 360,000 microLEDs. “You need a technology that can transfer 30,000 LEDs per second for a consumer application,” says Virey.

Yet that’s exactly the technology Apple is pursuing, and the company is thought to be nearing its goal. Apple did not respond to requests for comment. Virey estimates that Apple’s and possibly other microLED displays will debut in products in 2019. Watch for signals in the supply chain about six months prior, he says.
I'm willing to bet that, by 2020, the Apple Watch will be the first mass-market deployment of microLED screen technology. The technology will be used exclusively in company's wearable products for the next 7 or 10 years. This is why they are investing a lot in OLED right now for iPhones and probably iPads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
I can remember being excited way back then when reading the OLED thread

In the spirit of the epic OLED thread and with the usual caveats about it being years before we're likely to see consumer products... Bring it on!
Hopefully this thread will be as successful.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogo

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,331 Posts
[reserved #1 ]
I'm unreservedly excited about this tech. I'm hoping they come out with a non jigsaw design soon. I'd definitely pay more for this tech than OLED provided it is true that it doesn't have the burn in issues of OLED. Love to see a Sony TV version with the speaker being completely optional and the brains of the TV connected via a very long cable and the brains being designed so they can FIT into a standard rack or HT cabinet. No idea why LG still makes those monstrous speakers that are too gargantuan to fit into any normal ht cabinet that have the brains in them.
 
1 - 20 of 539 Posts
Top