AVS Forum banner

8841 - 8860 of 16655 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24501697


Lets see some of these sets in the wild before presuming that everything that LG says is true.
 

^^^^^^^^Don't worry.  Chances are you'll never find a more LG-skeptical group than the denizens of this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,714 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24502032

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24501697


Lets see some of these sets in the wild before presuming that everything that LG says is true.

^^^^^^^^Don't worry.  Chances are you'll never find a more LG-skeptical group than the denizens of this thread.

Just ran into this article from late February and have not seen it posted (at least since I've been following this thread): http://www.hdtvexpert.com/qd-vision-co-founder-predicts-death-of-oled-tv/


Of the several arguments and counterarguments made, this is the one I found most important (if true):

'Argument 6: New OLED manufacturing processes will further reduce costs. Counter-argument: Fine metal masks waste material and generate dust. The anticipated new low-cost processes — such as ink-jet printing, laser transfer, nozzle jet, and OVJP — are harder than we thought, and roll-to-roll isn’t amenable to high-resolution displays. In short, “OLED manufacturing is a yield and cost negative compared to mature LCD fabs.”'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,528 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24497772


Because there's been a lot of talk about the curved OLEDs, I think this article is somewhat relevant:

Why curved TVs might not be the devil's work after all. After 10 days with a curved TV, I actually quite like it.


Source: techradar.com

I haven't watched a curved screen OLED, or any curved TV for that matter, but I can only imagine the extremely poor off-axis viewing. Not for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24502032


^^^^^^^^Don't worry.  Chances are you'll never find a more LG-skeptical group than the denizens of this thread.

I'd call myself an OLED skeptic, yet a clear long-time believer that LG would outdo Samsung based on mfg. approach. I'd say that belief is vindicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24503290


Just ran into this article from late February and have not seen it posted (at least since I've been following this thread): http://www.hdtvexpert.com/qd-vision-co-founder-predicts-death-of-oled-tv/


Of the several arguments and counterarguments made, this is the one I found most important (if true):

'Argument 6: New OLED manufacturing processes will further reduce costs. Counter-argument: Fine metal masks waste material and generate dust. The anticipated new low-cost processes — such as ink-jet printing, laser transfer, nozzle jet, and OVJP — are harder than we thought, and roll-to-roll isn’t amenable to high-resolution displays. In short, “OLED manufacturing is a yield and cost negative compared to mature LCD fabs.”'

So... he may be right, but, of course, his whole business is based on OLED failing. And LG's tech is neither FMM nor ink-jet...


I mean, looking at the 2014 numbers, you could consider OLED TV a joke... But LG seems to be clearly saying that 2015 will be bigger and that by 2016 they intend to really hit what we'd call mass production levels. If that doesn't happen, I suppose obits might be in order. Until then, I'll call OLED a "very, very, very delayed technology that still seems to be the future of the high end"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24503441


^^^


I think the key thing from that article for all the OLED naysayers to note is ....

I'm going to generally ignore a guy whose company will be out of the TV business before that future comes around when he's talking about certainties.


His whole spiel in that article is a bunch of marketing-talk anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.


They also state that the 55ea980v (curved, no speakers) is supposed to be sold for 4500 euros in May.

http://www.dday.it/redazione/12182/TV-OLED-LG-sconto-mondiale-a-4490-euro.html

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,080 Posts
TEL and Epson launched a new 8G-OLED-Printer...
Quote:
Tokyo Electron Limited (TEL™) today announced that it has begun accepting orders for Elius™2500 inkjet printing system for manufacturing organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panels.


Based upon the joint development agreement concluded between TEL and Seiko Epson Corporation (Epson®) in 2010, a demonstration line was established at Tokyo Electron Yamanashi Limited to conduct inkjet method production of OLED panels, and the companies have worked together to advance the development of manufacturing technology. Now, in view of future expansion in the OLED display market, TEL has started accepting orders for inkjet printing system for production of OLED panels using 8th generation substrates.


Inkjet printing system significantly improves the productivity of organic luminescent layer formation for OLED panels. Currently, the organic luminescent layer of panels for large-screen televisions are formed in a vacuum using technology based on vacuum thermal evaporation (VTE), however the inkjet method adopted for the Elius2500 forms film by discharging the required amount of organic material onto large glass substrates in regular atmospheric conditions. Consequently, it will facilitate future handling of larger size television screens and cost reduction.


TEL and Epson aim to continue contributing to the growth of the OLED display market in the future.
http://www.tel.com/news/2014/0318_001.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24505494


A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.
This looks like LG is comparing their screen to Samsung's OLED, rather than a comparison between 2013 and 2014 models.


So 200 nits at 100% APL - 1/4 of the brightness of the new LCDs?


While it's good that LG are sticking with OLED and producing displays, I want nothing to do with their WRGB pixel structure.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24506641

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24505494


A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.
This looks like LG is comparing their screen to Samsung's OLED, rather than a comparison between 2013 and 2014 models.


So 200 nits at 100% APL - 1/4 of the brightness of the new LCDs?


While it's good that LG are sticking with OLED and producing displays, I want nothing to do with their WRGB pixel structure.
 

You pointed similar things out before.  Curious: What if it were oriented as 2x2 instead of 4x1?

 

My gripe is smaller: I personally don't like how (in the beginning) I kept hearing the word "efficiency" attached to a filtered design.  Filters throw away light.  Thankfully, they've finally seemed to have backed down from that, or so it seems to me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,049 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820#post_24505494


A small amount of info on the 2014 models. The max luminance looks to have been boosted to 500 nits at a 25% APL or 200 nits at a 100% APL. According to Displaymate's review, the max brightness in the 2013 models was 372 nits.

They also state that the 55ea980v (curved, no speakers) is supposed to be sold for 4500 euros in May.

http://www.dday.it/redazione/12182/TV-OLED-LG-sconto-mondiale-a-4490-euro.html

]

500 nits ?

thats crazy high

could be getting some serious contrast ratio there



they had 100 nits on a full white field before and now 200 ?

200 is good enough for me.

you can then have a really bright picture in daytime with almost no ABL dimming.

just like an LCD tv.


200 nits on a full white field requires twice the power compared to 100 nits

in other words they have raised the power consumtion 100% for the 2014 models


i read some numbers of 170 watts for the 2013 model

should be around 350W now peak.


more power to the people!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506641


This looks like LG is comparing their screen to Samsung's OLED, rather than a comparison between 2013 and 2014 models.


So 200 nits at 100% APL - 1/4 of the brightness of the new LCDs?


While it's good that LG are sticking with OLED and producing displays, I want nothing to do with their WRGB pixel structure.

At the very bottom you can see a footnote which says the luminance is for 2nd half 2014 models.


I havent read many complaints about the 2013 model due to the brightness and the 200 nits number looks like it is at least twice the brightness of that model. Moveover, the perceived brightness of the OLED will be higher than an equivalent LCD due to the higher contrast ratio.


At the very least, this should allow OLED's to look fairly good under the lights at Costco/BB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by pg_ice  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506938


200 nits on a full white field requires twice the power compared to 100 nits

in other words they have raised the power consumtion 100% for the 2014 models

I dont believe that they spec the power consumption based on the worst case scenario. Mobile OLED's use a 40% APL and most television usage should be even lower.


Also, I believe that there is a decent probability that LG will be using more efficient materials in the 2014 models. One question is whether we will see a longer lifetime specification for the new 4K units.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,049 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506968


Also, I believe that there is a decent probability that LG will be using more efficient materials in the 2014 models.

why do you think that?

you still have 2073600 lamps that needs power just like a Plasma TV.

its hard to reduce power consumtion if you want the same brightness level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by pg_ice  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24506980


why do you think that?

you still have 2073600 lamps that needs power just like a Plasma TV.

its hard to reduce power consumtion if you want the same brightness level.

I am not sure what you mean by "lamps".


There is an emitting layer of materials that emit white light that is run through the WRGB filter to produce the pixels that you see. The materials continue to get better in terms of power consumption/lifetime. If LG is still using the same material set as they were when they first showed their OLED televisions at CES 2012 (which is likely) then they should be able to show some meaningful progress on both numbers in their 4K units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733


You pointed similar things out before.  Curious: What if it were oriented as 2x2 instead of 4x1?
Because computers render text and graphics with the assumption that it's being displayed on a screen with a specific subpixel layout. If you change the layout, it completely breaks this.


It's difficult to say what would happen if you changed the arrangement from 4x1 to 2x2.

As it is now with a standard RGB display, if you draw a vertical line using a single color (e.g. red) you get a straight continuous line. If you draw a horizontal line, only every third subpixel is being lit up, so there is 2/3 of a pixel break in the line.

In some ways 2x2 might actually be better, as it would mean that things are more uniform because you would never have subpixels connecting in either direction and the gap would only ever be half a pixel.

However it would introduce ugly artifacts as soon as you start using subpixel combinations that don't use either a single subpixel, or all four. As you draw horizontal or vertical lines which only use two or three of the subpixels, you would get a "sawtooth" edge on the lines.

You would have to disable subpixel rendering on the computer which then considerably lowers your resolution on text.


Sharp have been using 3x2 (4x2 with Quattron) for years now, and selectively disable the upper or lower half of the subpixel (presumably for efficiency reasons) and the resulting "sawtooth" edge can be quite noticeable on horizontal lines.

However they are now using that 4x2 structure to their advantage and addressing it as a panel which has double the vertical resolution on the new models. (which is not trickery, they really do have 2160 vertical pixels)

There are some advantages to using non-standard subpixel layouts, as Sharp are now utilizing subpixel rendering to display much higher effective resolution than 1080p on their Quattron panels now (yellow can replace green in some color mixes) but that only works with video. It would look quite bad with computer graphics.


Ideally displays would not even have subpixels at all, and simply replace them with full color pixels.

Until that happens, sticking to the standard RGB stripe layout is the best thing to do.


If you're at a far enough distance, or have a high enough resolution display that you can no longer see these subpixel artifacts, then they don't matter so much. But I don't believe we are at that point yet. If you can see the advantage of 4K, then it means you can resolve the subpixels on a 1080p screen. (and vice-versa)

Perhaps 4K screens will be able to get away with non-standard subpixel layouts, but I suspect it will require 8K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733


My gripe is smaller: I personally don't like how (in the beginning) I kept hearing the word "efficiency" attached to a filtered design. Filters throw away light. Thankfully, they've finally seemed to have backed down from that, or so it seems to me.
Well I don't know how they are using the subpixels, but I can think of a couple of scenarios where it may be more efficient.


If you're reducing the saturation of blue for example, on a normal display you maybe have 100% blue, 50% red, and 50% green.

With LG's design you might use 100% blue and 50% white instead.

Or perhaps they use 100% blue, 25% white, 12.5% red and 12.5% green. (numbers used for illustration, I did no calculations there whatsoever so they're very likely wrong)


One of those is probably more efficient than a standard RGB display.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24507042

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733


My gripe is smaller: I personally don't like how (in the beginning) I kept hearing the word "efficiency" attached to a filtered design. Filters throw away light. Thankfully, they've finally seemed to have backed down from that, or so it seems to me.
Well I don't know how they are using the subpixels, but I can think of a couple of scenarios where it may be more efficient.


If you're reducing the saturation of blue for example, on a normal display you maybe have 100% blue, 50% red, and 50% green.

With LG's design you might use 100% blue and 50% white instead.

Or perhaps they use 100% blue, 25% white, 12.5% red and 12.5% green. (numbers used for illustration, I did no calculations there whatsoever so they're very likely wrong)


One of those is probably more efficient than a standard RGB display.
 

This was my original guess as well, but I think it only pans out for cases very low in saturation.  Mathematically, too much light is being thrown away every time one of the primaries is used.

 

Make that desaturated blue of yours a very light light light blue.  Perhaps RGB %'s of 95/95/100.  If they're using this the way I think they are, they're taking out the "gray component" (95/95/95) out of the triad, handing that to the white, and yielding the remaining blue to push the hue.  This would nominally yield a (95/0/0/5), but the math is tricky because it doesn't take into account the decreased relative area of each subpixel when there are 4 of them, and the blue is filtered so needs more.  So perhaps (95/0/0/10).  Here, if the white is unfiltered entirely, then there is a big win.....But is it?:

 

A single white subpixel cannot provide enough light total surrounded by 3 dim or off subs.  So perhaps it's more like (95/5/5/15).  (the triad part is still filtered)

 

I keep running into the situation where it only seems to work as the color is desaturated, but the more desaturated it is the more it requires more of the primaries than I thought.

 

IF ANYTHING, LG is making the argument for Samsung to use WRGB (all unfiltered).  But as soon as you throw a filter on a white, you're throwing away most of the light, and hence, most of the energy used in that subpixel's white.

 

In that example of (something/5/5/15), nominally (a very rough estimate of) 2/3rds of the light used in that (/5/5/15) is thrown away.  Always.

 

EDIT: Perhaps if it is a win, the white was added because it was the only way to keep the power consumption from being atrociously high.  LG is locked into the creation of a massive white OLED layer (which means filters are required), which means a ton of energy is thrown away.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8820_60#post_24507042

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8800_100#post_24506733


You pointed similar things out before.  Curious: What if it were oriented as 2x2 instead of 4x1?
Because computers render text and graphics with the assumption that it's being displayed on a screen with a specific subpixel layout. If you change the layout, it completely breaks this.
 

All subpixel rendering assumes a layout of some kind.  A different layout would require a different algorithm, but one could still be used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/681125/oled-tvs-technology-advancements-thread/8850#post_24507042



Because computers render text and graphics with the assumption that it's being displayed on a screen with a specific subpixel layout. If you change the layout, it completely breaks this.
 

Is ClearType really that relevant on a TV? 
 
8841 - 8860 of 16655 Posts
Top