AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Last I heard sony is working on a 40" display, but not much since then. With the limited info it's hard to know if it's keeping up with all it's promises (better contrast/brighter/full viewing angle/untouched by ambient light) and what's going on with the current problems, like the blues and heat.


Cyphatic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
No one on the planet is working on a 40" OLED display. Kodak and Sanyo are working on commercializing a 2 inch display. Yes TWO INCH. Sony has prototyped a 15" OLED display. There exist maybe a handful of prototypes in the world.


You can bank on the following:


(1) There will be no OLED TV >4" anywhere in the world this year for sale.


(2) There will be no OLED display for sale to end users >15" next year (2003).


(3) There will be no OLED display of home-theater proporition, e.g. 40" or larger, until 2005 at the absolute earliest. As a practical matter, I doubt you will see one of that size before 2007.


You can bank on the above predicitions.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Doh :/


So what exactly is holding them back at this point?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,098 Posts
The technology is nowhere near ready.


The same thing happend with plasma. I remember seeing orange plasma laptop displays in the late 80s. It took them over 10 years to reach a point where they could put these things on 42" HT displays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Specifically, it is impossible to fabricate a display of any meaningful size. The lifetime of the display is measured in hundreds of hours, not tens of thousands. The performance of the display is nowhere near the theoretical capabilities when it is anything larger than 2-3" diagonally.


It will take a decade from here.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Thanks for the find divvy. I always like to be right, but even I am a little surprised at the year match from this comment: "I don't see anything in OLED in the over-30-inch-screen area for the next few years, probably not before 2007," says Barry Young, vice president of DisplaySearch, a display industry analysis firm based in Austin, Texas.


It's also worth noting in light of these timetables that when a technology first reaches a given size, it tends *not* to be cheap. It will be a challenge to make the first 20" OLED commercially (today's largest commercial display -- not a barely functioning prototype like the 17" just showed off which observers described as sketchy), the first 30", the first 40", etc.


I would guess the breakthrough advances in size will be quite pricey because from what I've seen of the technology, it has some unique performance characteristics. The first 17" computer monitor that is OLED may well be breathtaking in its performance. If not, why would anyone buy it over a TFT-LCD? It also may cost 2x as much when it first ships.


It's important to keep all this in perspective against the backdrop of what's likely to occur in the next 5 years and explains why the Infocomm article is not entirely sanguine on anything upending the incumbents. Consider that the 15" TFT has been as cheap as about $300 (partly due to glut, but partly due to manufacturing/production efficiencies that have developed over more than a decade). 16 of them would make a 52" diagonal display of epic resolution that costs about $5k...


Now, you can't really build that display for a lot of reasons, but despite the 30" Sharp running, what $6K, you can imagine a 52" TFT for even less with existing "costs per inch". And you can certainly conceive of that display being built within a couple of years by Samsung. Imagine better-than-1600 x 1200 resolution at 50" with super-low-power consumption, improved contrast, etc. etc. TFT gets better over time and cheaper. Ask Samsung for their vision of TFT in 2005-2007 and they probably tell you it'll go to 60", to 1500:1 contrast, to 3200 x 2000 resolution, etc.


And look at our friend plasma. We can see it going to $2K at 42" and $4K at 50" by 2005 (I think it does better, but I'll be a tad conservative). By 2007, it's almost certaintly cheaper than that. It's really offering 2000:1 contrast by then (measurable). It's at 1366 x 768 at 42", 1600 x 1200 at 50", 2400 x 1600 at 60". Burn-in risk is mitigated by 100,000+ hour panel-to-half-brightness time.


How does the new guy compete with these two? That's the real problem. It's hard for a technology to come along that is so discontinuous it is not only better but also cheaper. Learning curves on production don't usually work that way.


I still see OLED as the eventual successor to TFT because so many people are backing it/experimenting with it, but the challenges are great and the timetables long.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Yep, that year 2007 quote was what that caught my eye rogo. Uncanny :D


Thanks for the above extrapolation. Makes a lot of sense.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top