AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Saw this myself in the news just. I'm wondering what (if any) disadvantages QLED has compared to OLED. It's thin, light, high colour gamut, power efficient.


But how about the potential refresh rate? Or potential density of resolution? Or lifespan and durability of the pixels? And the maximum brightness - can it hope to match LED in that department?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by twinbee /forum/post/19591482


Saw this myself in the news just. I'm wondering what (if any) disadvantages QLED has compared to OLED. It's thin, light, high colour gamut, power efficient.


But how about the potential refresh rate? Or potential density of resolution? Or lifespan and durability of the pixels? And the maximum brightness - can it hope to match LED in that department?

The most crucial advantage over OLED that I'm getting from the info so far is that producing QLEDs should be far easier than making OLEDs. I'm not an OLED expert, but it seems like most of the problems with making OLEDs are caused by instability of organic materials while QLEDs replace most of them with readily available and reliable inorganic quantum dots. According to QD Vision, QLEDs won't even need glass substrates, and could be printed on pretty much anything, including flexible materials, and on large areas. On the Wikipedia page it says that QLED displays should be 50-100 times brighter than CRTs and LCDs. If this is true, then these displays will be able to do full-blown HDR video right out of the gate and without breaking a sweat! The same Wikipedia page mentions that 1000 pixel-per-inch resolution is possible. Not much is confirmed about refresh rate, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar to OLED's, since QLED seems like a more robust version of OLED technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
You should read up the OLED thread in this forum. LG is not the leader there.


While LG struggles to sell 10k 31" AMOLED TV at US$9k NEXT YEAR, Sammy will be selling 10mio samsung galaxy s. They do not even understand why AMOLED acceptance should start from mobile devices, instead of making some showcase TV like the Japanese do. Sammy will have their next tablet in AMOLED next year.


In the past 15 years or so I cannot recall any technology leadership from Lucky Goldstar, not in white goods, TV or mobile or even DRAM. The closest to tech leadership was IPS panel and yet they flopped in capitalizing on it even when Apple gives them free publicity.


Last but not least, LG doesn't have excess money to flaunt on R&D, with their main handset business in trouble and TFT is in a downdraft. Even just 2 years ago they didn't even believe LED backlit LCD will pick up while Samsung ramps. And now just perfect that their subsi LG Innotek is ramping massive LED capacity while LED goes into oversupply. I wouldn't hold my breath with LG's technology leadership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
IDK. LG is a big player on the OEM side of things. They hold the patent on the QAM tuner and their primary business is/was chemical manufacturing. They may be better positioned then you think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Several years ago LG was certainly not a leader in TV technology, but over the last year or so, it seems like they're on their way up and making some innovative products. That 31-inch OLED is a big achievement, no matter how much it will cost, especially with giants like Sony closing their OLED shop and Samsung treading water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
For sure LG is a big OEM player with good innovations, I think very good value for features. But that does not make it a technology leader.


If memory serves me correctly, QAM tuners are from the purchase of Zenith.


Neither does having a chemical business helps. Formosa and Chi Mei has bigger chemical business but that does not mean their tech subsidiaries Nan Ya or CMO are any closer to being tech leaders.


Samsung is the leader in AMOLED. It is not treading water. It could and would make AMOLED TV as long as they have sufficient capacity and profitable in large volumes. LG is not thinking in terms of volume nor profits. They will remain as follower. 5 years from now you will see Sammy producing more AMOLED TV than LG even when both start this year with similar AMOLED capacity, and Sammy not producing a single commercially available AMOLED TV next year.


BTW I am not a Sammy fan. I don't own a single samsung product except a LCD monitor 13 years ago
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by revetahw /forum/post/19610807

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/24126/

I am wondering why they only talk about using the quantum dots to convert the blue led light to rgb before the color filters to then filter out the unwanted colors per subpixel.

Any ideas why it is not possible(yet) to use the quantum dots instead of color filters per subpixel?

It seems this would about triple the efficiency.

It's probably harder or currently more expensive to replace color filters with quantum dots. That's my guess. But if 50-inch QLEDs displays are demoed, maybe we won't have to deal with backlights, color filters and all that messy LCD technology altogether.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvted /forum/post/19608449

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26831/?p1=A2

Interesting. It's a bit disappointing that QDs currently achieve 10K-hour lifetimes, which seems like the only known weakness of this technology, but if they're able to print large sheets of this stuff, then maybe it wouldn't cost that much to replace one sheet with another after several years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms /forum/post/19611358


It's probably harder or currently more expensive to replace color filters with quantum dots. That's my guess. But if 50-inch QLEDs displays are demoed, maybe we won't have to deal with backlights, color filters and all that messy LCD technology altogether.

I wish i could have my qled display now too but it doenst seem likely does it?


Ive been waiting for my oled for about 8 years now i think...

Just replacing filters by quantum dots seems like it could be a quick upgrade to the existing factories which would be really great if this happened in the near future.

About the 10000 hours lifetime you mentioned, it seems the problems this would cause in a qled display wouldnt be any bigger than in an lcd backlight so i wonder what their thinking is to justify adding it there?


Edit: maybe the assumption that qleds excited by light have the same short lifespan as those by electricity is wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by revetahw /forum/post/19612069


I wish i could have my qled display now too but it doenst seem likely does it?

Now, no, but 2-3 years from now, who knows?

Quote:
Ive been waiting for my oled for about 8 years now i think...

I think 2 years ago I started a thread about OLED's death. Sure, OLED is alive and well in the 8-inch and under display market, but, as far as big TVs go, it'll remain as dead as SED.


Even though QLED should be equal or better than OLED at everything, by far the most important advantage is easier manufacturing and scalability as this would finally solve OLED's biggest problems--cost and limited size--which is why QLED has emerged as a real contender to retire LCDs and PDPs. The question now is whether this theoretical advantage translates into reality and soon. I'd say if LG doesn't have any QLED prototypes at CES 2012, it'll mean that QLEDs aren't that much easier to make than OLEDs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
What do you think has prevented any of these companies from making qleds over the last few years? I would like to know the big difference between now and 2 years ago and why it was left to these little companies to solve whatever was missing if this will really lead to such a big breakthrough.

If they do start production in 2 years i still think it will be a long time before large affordable displays become available because as long as lcd's and pdp's make up most of the total production volume qled prices will be significantly higher since they are higher quality displays.

The only thing that could speed it up significantly is if they could be made on comparatively very cheap manufacturing plants that allow them to build enough production volume to make the lcd and pdp plants obsolete in a few years but this doesnt seem likely.

But if you are willing to pay $5000 for a 50inch qled in 2-3 years then i do understand your optimism and you might just get what you want
What im looking to get in about 3 years is a high quality 80inch for $3000 so i will most likely be stuck with lcd for that (a pdp would use too much power especially since i want to use it as my computer display for 10 hours a day).

In the longer term i would like a 120inch+ and i think for sizes approaching 100inches the solid heavy lcd's and pdp's are not suitable and will have to be flexible qleds or oleds or something similar so i do hope one of these new technologies takes off in the next few years so large ones can become affordable in 5 years, but im affraid i might still be too optimistic hoping for this.

I really hate living in the past ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by revetahw /forum/post/19614120


What do you think has prevented any of these companies from making qleds over the last few years? I would like to know the big difference between now and 2 years ago and why it was left to these little companies to solve whatever was missing if this will really lead to such a big breakthrough.

Big companies don't want to invest in half-baked technologies that might fail in the end or in technologies too difficult and costly to commercialize, especially after spectacular failure of SED. Also, nobody wants to take a chance at investing in a new technology that has little chance to offer better PQ at much lower cost than LCDs. If there's little chance more money could be earned with a new technology than with LCDs, then what's the point of even trying to develop something new? So, in the end, it's up to these small companies to bare the whole burden of risk of developing a completely new technology in the hope of licensing it later to the big boys. The big companies expect these small R&D companies to hand them complete solutions on a silver platter, or they're not interested.


I've done some more reading on QLEDs and it seems like the difference between then and now is the improved chemistry of QLEDs that leads to greater efficiencies. While photoluminescence of current QLEDs is probably good enough already, it's useless for display technology. In order for QLEDs to be used in displays, they have to be really good at electroluminescence and that is something that has begun to be worked on in the last few years and current performance is lagging well behind what photoluminescence can achieve. From what I can tell, performance of electroluminescent QLEDs only recently started to approach OLED's but QD Vision claims that electroluminescence will end up as the most efficient way of generating light from quantum dots, far surpassing what OLEDs could ever hope to do, and it's just a matter of time before that happens.


Also, QD Vision and another company Solvay are going to develop a printing process for QLEDs.


So, with increasing progress on the QD performance front and likely ability to print QLEDs on anything on the horizon, LG apparently sees enough good things to think it's worth placing a bet on QLEDs, especially since they have experience making OLEDs and, theoretically, have all the necessary pieces ready to develop QLED displays.


Meanwhile, there are big plans to use the same quantum dots to improve LED backlights next year, which will not only bring a lot of attention to what quantum dots can do, but it should also drive the progress of making better, more efficient QLEDs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
We shall soon know how much money LGD put into developing QLED in their 2011 budget.


If it is to replace LED as backlighting then it is far less complicated and plausible.


The goal of LED backlighting has always been to replace the color filter but to do it perfectly would require 6K LED as backlight which will be very hot

Quote:
Originally Posted by revetahw /forum/post/0


I am wondering why they only talk about using the quantum dots to convert the blue led light to rgb before the color filters to then filter out the unwanted colors per subpixel.

Any ideas why it is not possible(yet) to use the quantum dots instead of color filters per subpixel?

It seems this would about triple the efficiency.

Think the early plasma. Nobody will be keen to replace parts of a short lived display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms /forum/post/0


Interesting. It's a bit disappointing that QDs currently achieve 10K-hour lifetimes, which seems like the only known weakness of this technology, but if they're able to print large sheets of this stuff, then maybe it wouldn't cost that much to replace one sheet with another after several years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms /forum/post/19617733


I've done some more reading on QLEDs and it seems like the difference between then and now is the improved chemistry of QLEDs that leads to greater efficiencies. While photoluminescence of current QLEDs is probably good enough already, it's useless for display technology. In order for QLEDs to be used in displays, they have to be really good at electroluminescence and that is something that has begun to be worked on in the last few years and current performance is lagging well behind what photoluminescence can achieve. From what I can tell, performance of electroluminescent QLEDs only recently started to approach OLED's but QD Vision claims that electroluminescence will end up as the most efficient way of generating light from quantum dots, far surpassing what OLEDs could ever hope to do, and it's just a matter of time before that happens.

When QD Vision claims that electroluminescence will end up most efficient they probably mean compared to the combined efficiency of led's with quantum dots. If this actually gets implemented in displays at that level of efficiency it would be a massive improvement over current displays. Considering how little a current tv lights up the room compared to my 80watts worth of fluorescent lighting i have here and knowing led's are already more efficient you can see what the potential is. An 80inch qled showing a brighter image than current led lcd's while consuming just 20watts would probably be possible. Let's just hope all of this talk from QD Vision is actually based in reality and is not just wishful thinking and falls promises.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by revetahw
When QD Vision claims that electroluminescence will end up most efficient they probably mean compared to the combined efficiency of led's with quantum dots.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/11/16
Quote:
QD Vision CTO and co-founder Seth Coe-Sullivan said, Today we are getting the highest lumens per watt out of photoluminescence systems that are excited by blue LEDs. Long term the potential benefit electroluminescence does have is a fundamental advantage in terms of generating light most efficiently.
Quote:
We're just showing them that using quantum dots as the emissive material has performance, lifetime, and cost benefits, said Coe-Sullivan. When our performance was an order of magnitude worse than OLEDs, it was hard for people to make that leap. Today we are catching up quickly. Our performance isn't going to plane out at OLED performance. The lines are going to cross. Our performance is going to be significantly higher.
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
Top