Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OLED Breakthrough Yields 75% More Efficient Lights

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the mehr-licht dept.

Power 151

Mike writes "Researchers at Korea's Advanced Institute of Science and Technology recently announced a breakthrough in OLED technology that reduces the ultra-thin lights' energy consumption by 75%. The discovery hinges upon a new method of creating 'surface plasmon enhanced' organic light emitting diodes that boast 1.75 times increased emission rates and double the light intensity." OLEDnet notes: "The finding was published in the April issue of Applied Physics Letters and the June 25 issue of Optics Express. It will be also featured as the research highlight of the August issue of Nature Photonics and Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know what is going to happen... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729527)

I'm just going to buy lights that are 75% brighter.

brightness. (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731339)

Maybe they'll be bright enough to use for area lighting?

Yep (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731751)

Yep, even a 100W standard bulb in a small room is much too dark compared to outdoors. I'd love to have more powerful lighting tech available, but not at reduced output -- at the same output or better.

Where this will really make a difference though, is in mountain bikes --- it currently costs around £350 for a reasonably high-end lightsource for bikes, and even then, the high-end well-reviewed stuff just sucks for any serious riding in the dark. Riding in the dark isn't just necessary in winter -- it's also an interesting potential sport. But until the lights are more powerful, cheaper, lighter, and last longer, it's not happening as much as it could.

I can see the spam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729535)

make more out of your desires

click here to order your free shipment of herbal plasmon enhanced OLEDs for 365 percent enhanced efficiency

Gotta catch 'em all! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729549)

I choose you, Plasmon!

Sounds good but... (1, Interesting)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729555)

Sounds good, and very likely is, but how much energy is lost in generating the vacuum required to give these lights the extra efficiency? The chances are the light is still more efficient even after taking in the production process.Besides, they look so damn cool! That is awesome

Re:Sounds good but... (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729727)

Yup, because sucking out some air requires more energy than leaving a light on for thousands of hours...

Re:Sounds good but... (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731243)

Yup, because sucking out some air requires more energy than leaving a light on for thousands of hours...

I always turn off my lights when I vaccuum. It helps...

Re:Sounds good but... (4, Interesting)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729775)

Many vapor and physical deposition processes in semiconductor manufacture take place in a high vacuum. Making OLEDs probably already requires a vacuum at one stage for such deposition. I would say the efficiency issues with this process hinge on cost, not energy, and even that seems quite manageable.

Re:Sounds good but... (5, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730043)

Sounds like a great new technology but I get frustrated when product seems to take forever to get to market.

Re:Sounds good but... (2, Interesting)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730937)

Sounds like a great new technology but I get frustrated when product seems to take forever to get to market.

It's important to keep perspective on news items like this as "research results" rather than "products." That misunderstanding takes the fun out of a great spectator sport. ;-) Sometimes results out of the lab are immediately applicable, more often they take a quite a number of years to work out the practical kinks. E.g. this recent article on silicon for photo detectors in Tech Review [technologyreview.com] has a good examples of the kinds of problems researchers have to muddle through on the way from breakthrough to reality. It doesn't help that popular tech reporting (and some researchers) love to add 'hooks' of tantalizing applications for new work... but for all those lofty dreams it's still just a research result.

In short, it's best not to hitch one's proverbial horse to any one of these announcements. Instead, read a lot of them to get a good sense of where technology is headed and where academia and industry are investing their efforts.

two possible improvements (4, Informative)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730127)

Many methods for organic device deposition make use of inkjet printing which is extremely low-cost and easy to do (I'm guessing roughly several square miles per day).

They're using silver nanoparticles. Silver isn't cheap, but in that quantity it's not a big deal. Possible improvements to this method include using a different nanoparticle material (but silver is the best for surface plasmon effects, except for maybe gold) and incorporating inkjet printing to avoid high-cost vacuum environments. I don't think an inkjet deposition method would interfere with surface plasmon interactions on the nanoparticles so we should still see good efficiency.

TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs. Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).

Re:two possible improvements (2, Interesting)

rift321 (1358397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730349)

Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).

Hey, sorry for my ignorance, but I thought that silver is highly susceptible to photocorrosion - isn't it used in photographic (b&w) film, or photochromic lenses? I'd just like to know where the difference is, or just some more info.

Re:two possible improvements (3, Informative)

lxs (131946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730843)

Those are silver salts (mostly nitrate and halides). Metallic silver isn't affected by light. That's why it makes excellent mirrors (until oxygen gets to it of course)

Re:two possible improvements (1)

rift321 (1358397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730873)

ohhh yeaaah... I forgot they made mirrors from silver. hah. Thanks.

Re:two possible improvements (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731061)

I'm no chemist, but I am a photographer. The light-sensitive chemical in photographic film and paper is a Silver Halide (usually silver chloride or silver bromide)

According to the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] , these chemicals are extremely insoluble in water.

Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable could jump in and explain the difference and the underlying chemistry?

Re:two possible improvements (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731321)

Silver compounds (like what you have in your film) are not very stable because it doesn't like to oxidize. Pure silver (as is used in their nanoparticles) are the opposite - very stable in elemental form. The only element that's more inert than silver is gold AFAIK.

It should make sense: elements that easily form compounds are unstable in elemental form; elements that don't easily form stable compounds are stable in elemental form.

Re:two possible improvements (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732141)

The only element that's more inert than silver is gold AFAIK.

I believe platinum is a bit more inert even than gold. Of course, this is just for metals. If you're talking about all elements, I think the noble gases have even the inert metals beat.

Re:two possible improvements (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731801)

Silver corrodes quickly in open air, that's why most supermarkets sell silver polish. IIRC, the culprit is sulphur.

Re:two possible improvements (1)

bperkins (12056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731867)

<em> TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs. </em>

My cynical self takes the opposite view. If they don't mention lifetime, it's probably awful.

Re:Sounds good but... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729781)

It would certainly be modestly more expensive than an otherwise equivalent process that doesn't require a high vacuum step; but vacuum deposition isn't exactly exotic. All sorts of surface metalizing processes use it.

Aside from that, there are applications(actually quite a lot of them) where being able to consume less energy at the point of use, even if you consume more energy overall, is quite valuable. For any "off grid" application(whether permanent, like your survivalist bunker in Montana, or temporary, like your macbook during a trip to starbucks) what really matters is how much energy your device is using now not how much energy it took to create. For that matter, any rechargeable battery is highly wasteful, since a fair bit of the charge energy will just be lost as heat; but having the energy where you need it is obviously valuable. This is the same reason why solar panels became valuable for specific off grid applications well before they reached the break-even point for lifetime energy cost vs. energy production.

Re:Sounds good but... (3, Informative)

just fiddling around (636818) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730423)

One of the major reasons why OLEDs are so interesting is because they are *not* vacuum-deposited, but deposited with ink-jet or screen printing techniques. [wikipedia.org]

Of course, 75% reduction of the already-small power consumption of OLEDs is probably worth it for mobile apps.

Re:Sounds good but... (2, Interesting)

proc_tarry (704097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730505)

We will always consume the most amount of energy we can afford. This means power savings from OLEDs will only contribute to having more OLEDs, and total power consumption will remain the same.

Fundamental equation: Life = Energy. If we as a species don't find a way to regulate energy consumption, Mother Nature will.

Re:Sounds good but... (1)

hewest (1332179) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730745)

There is a nearly limitless amount of energy, the planet has been collecting energy from the sun. Mother nature has figured out how to capture, store and use energy in a clean and fairly efficient way. I don't plan on stopping using energy, I just want to have a system that captures, stores and uses energy cleanly and more efficiently then we currently do.

This notion that energy is a limited commodity is a waste of my time, which is a limited commodity.

Re:Sounds good but... (2, Informative)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732195)

Sometimes referred to as waste homeostasis or the rebound effect [wikipedia.org] .

I have a hybrid, so no more carpooling for me, suckers!

News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (0, Troll)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729565)

I'll be honest, I haven't read much into this, but I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions which involve, essentially, ecological whaling. As a rule of thumb, a 'green' product should be 'green' to mass produce. -- Any chance anyone here can verify how these can be mass produced?

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (4, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729625)

If we need to use whales for this then that is fine as long as we start a breeding program to accelerate the replacement of the culled whales. Maybe we could harvest eggs and sperm from harpooned whales, then create embryos and mature them in an artificial uterus, then release them back out to nature to grow where they could be harpooned and the cycle would continue and we could increase the number of whales in the oceans exponentially.

I think we should name the company Mobil-Dick.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729889)

Sorry, I already have a company called Mobil-Dick and it usually has nothing to do with animals.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28730345)

... yet

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

moondawg14 (1058442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730361)

+12 "usually" FTW!

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28730743)

What you want to do with engine oil in your spare time is none of our business.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

rift321 (1358397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730399)

I wish everyone thought like you. I love creative engineering solutions.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (3, Informative)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730491)

Why do we always return to picking on the whales? What did the whales ever do to warrant this? Whales are cool!
I say lets replace all usage of whale blubber to using people blubber instead. There are plenty of useless people wandering about everywhere. A few here and there won't be missed. We can start with rounding some up in the halls of congress.

Soylent Green anyone?

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730833)

I looked into this, but unfortunately the average obese stretch-pants-wearing Walmart shopper will only fuel my SUV for a week or so.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28730879)

Don't worry, the American population is hard at work evolving into land-whales. Problem solved!

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

hab136 (30884) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730925)

I say lets replace all usage of whale blubber to using people blubber instead. There are plenty of useless people wandering about everywhere. A few here and there won't be missed. We can start with rounding some up in the halls of congress.

You don't have to kill them, just give them all free liposuction. Win-win.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

delt0r (999393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731907)

Whales just taste better!

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (4, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729693)

I would think the usefulness of these OLEDs would be more for brighter (daylight readable) electronic displays than for hugging trees and crunching granola. Eco friendliness is not the only reason to conserve power; consider for example extended battery life as a more tangible benefit.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (2, Interesting)

thms (1339227) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729955)

OLEDs might be the future for most displays (has the problem of a low blue life span been solved yet?), however when it comes to competing with direct sunlight all they can do is try to outshine it - not a competition any technology so far has won.

Transreflective LCDs, where the backlight transmits its own light but also reflects incoming light, are much better solution there. And for mostly static displays of course ePaper which will hopefully get faster pixel switching time and colour in the future.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (-1, Troll)

CRiMSON (3495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729883)

How about you do your own fucking research. Or is that asking a bit too much? Then again this is /. So yah.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729927)

Vacuum deposition is a reasonably common industrial process. Not absolutely trivial(high-vacuum pumps aren't cheap, and I'm sure maintaining the seals on a high-throughput system with a vacuum stage is a pain in the ass); but hardly more difficult than any of the other tricky processes that we run in massive volume every day.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (4, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730323)

I can tell you that maintaining a high vacuum seal is simple. Orings are amazing things, and the physics that goes along with them is astonishing. That unassuming little black ring really is quite amazing. Forget holding a vacuum; properly designed, they can stand up to 100x atmospheric pressure against a total vacuum and not break a sweat. I'm a scuba diver, and the orings on my scuba tank yoke valve hold up 200 bar, which makes the pressure difference between normal air pressure and a vacuum look like the breath exhaled from the mouth of a sleeping newborn.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731535)

That reminds me of the Futurama episode where they get dragged underwater in their ship (Lost City of Atlanta, maybe?)

Professor: "We're at 200 atmospheres of pressure!" (forgot the exact number)
Fry: "How many atmospheres is this ship designed to withstand?"
Professor: "Somewhere between 0 and 1!"

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28731895)

I can tell you that maintaining a high vacuum seal is simple.

Such was her utterance.

Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731415)

Same here. I perform vacuum deposition on a regular basis. Every time I hoover my room, I deposit the vacuum back into the closet.

Green? I hope more.... (2, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730237)

...I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions...

Nowhere in either article is there any claim towards being eco-friendly. Neither is the word "green" in the articles, so I am quite at a loss as to why you're off on this tangent. The only claim that might be considered close is the 75% reduction in energy use, however that statement is leaps and bounds away from "It's green and eco-friendly".

Green? I hope these new OLEDs are more than just green, but red, blue, orange, white.... every color of the rainbow.

PLEASE MOD AS TROLL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28730497)

1) vacuum deposition has nothing to do with whales
2) OLEDs have nothing to do with whales
3) RTFA and read Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] before posting such stupid comments.

Come on, insightful??? who is the drunken guy who gave that mod?

Cooled OLED? (1)

PatLam (1389819) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729587)

Now combine it with the new cooled LED technologie and you got a cooled OLED with less energy consumption and more efficienty.

The biggest plus is missing... (1)

shacky003 (1595307) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729651)

I'll be the first of the many here at /. to cry out "Bigger, Brighter, PORN!" as a single tear forms...

Re:The biggest plus is missing... (2, Funny)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729681)

I have mine hooked up to a 65" 1080p DLP TV in my living room. Unfortunately, I'm always afraid someone driving by will look through the blinds. Hehehe...

Re:The biggest plus is missing... (1)

shacky003 (1595307) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729785)

with that setup, I would think you wouldn't need to worry about someone looking through the blinds - you'd be worried about still images being burned into the blinds themselves.. lol

Streetview (2, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730657)

Has that Google Streetview van passed by your place yet?

If they haven't maybe you should plan something extra special for them :).

Re:The biggest plus is missing... (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730707)

I have mine hooked up to a 65" 1080p DLP TV in my living room.

eeew, a 34dpi screen. What low resolution.

43% less power, you mean (5, Interesting)

JasperKlewer (1600041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729659)

The lights radiate 75% more energy. That means a reduction of power of 1 - (1/1.75) = 43%, right?

Re:43% less power, you mean (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729685)

No. In this case 1 - (1/1.75) = You're a colon-sucking faggot.

Re:43% less power, you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729895)

kdawson, you shouldn't be so touchy.

Re:43% less power, you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729821)

Yep, thought so too.

Journal of Ultrafast Science (5, Funny)

goobermaster (1263770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729673)

Now _that_ is a cool name for a scientific journal. I can imagine reading it now...

[Me]: Wow, OLED's use 75% less energy now!
-turns pages-
[Me]: Oh, fusion! That was fast!

Re:Journal of Ultrafast Science (1)

drizek (1481461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732075)

It is so fast they can't even print it. It has to stay as a virtual journal because by the time they cut the tree down it is already obsolete.

Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (3, Funny)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729691)

And we're one step closer to animated cereal boxes...

Oh joy.

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729735)

The bad always comes with the good. I mean, would you really throw away internet message boards just because they enable hipster whining?

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730367)

Big. Fat. Yes.

I got along just fine with usenet, thank you very much. Internet forums have increased the volume and decreased the useful content of the dialog that occurs online.

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730933)

Broadly speaking, usenet is an internet message board.

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (1)

shacky003 (1595307) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729737)

Just a little bit longer for the cross-marketing to kick in..
Mommy, why is the Special K flashing an ad for tampons?

I'll bet the farm something like that is in the not-so-distant future..

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729909)

Mommy, why is the Special K flashing an ad for tampons?

Bloody hell...

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (1)

red_dragon (1761) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731349)

Mommy, why is the Special K flashing an ad for tampons?

Bloody hell...

And how!

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730539)

Could be worse. They could be flashing an ad for Mobil-Dick.

Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs! (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730033)

Oh come on, it isn't off-topic. reduced power consumption means that a smaller (cheaper) battery can be used to power it. Thus along with other developments (didn't I hear about a roll to roll oled screen manufacturing process a while back?) this could certainly lead to animated packaging... but before that, probably video greeting cards.

USA is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729729)

yet another breakthrough happening in a foreign country where freedom isn't just a slogan on their fiat currency. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is warning that we have to spend even more money (that we don't have) to avoid bankruptcy. Because the cure for excessive government spending is even more government spending. At least according to big government liberals, a term that applies to most democrats and republicans.

Mod me down but spend a couple minutes thinking about the future. Where's the hope?

Compared to what? (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729733)

Previous oleds (of which I have no idea how those compare to a standard bulb), or a standard bulb or ???? How does this compare to a standard 75w bulb?

But how long do they last? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28729773)

OLEDs have traditionally had very short life spans compared to other display technologies. Does the 'surfance plasmon enhanced' (SPE) device fair any better?

Re:But how long do they last? (2, Interesting)

f8l_0e (775982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730717)

Indeed the TFA mentioned nothing. I had the same thought as you, specifically regarding blue OLED. They have the shortest lifespan. I would figure though, if they are 75% more efficient, that mean far less energy being pumped through the device and therefore (though possibly incorrect) less strain on the organic structure and slower breakdown.

bah. (1, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729809)

Give me a wall screen TV or a whole ceiling panal light and I'll be impressed.

It has no real purpose unless somebody sells something from it...

Re:bah. (1)

shacky003 (1595307) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729887)

This could easily add hours of battery life to laptops in the future..

Re:bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28730077)

Your reason is right here
http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ [thinkgeek.com]

Re:bah. (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730871)

Yeah, I want large (metre square) wall and ceiling lights to replace the point light sources with lampshades that I never like I currently use. That, and a dimmer function...

Re:bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28732271)

A ceiling / wall length OLED lighting system would be awesome! You could customize your light pools to be directly over furniture. Move your furniture, your light could move with it without rewiring. You could also customize the color or "warmth" of the light. And if you are one for dance parties, a music visualization program would rock on this kind of display. #grin#

That's all well and good... (2, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729841)

But what *I'd* really like to see is some real advancement in photon-reflective display technology rather than emissive. Our eyes are evolved to primarily observe light reflected _OFF_ of other objects, not photons flung straight into our eyes from some source, and in my experience it is *FAR* easier to observe something for an extended period of time that is being lit by surrounding light than it is to study something that produces its own. I think it may have something to do with pupil dilation... but I'm not sure.

Now of course, I know there's electronic paper, which I think is awesome, but what I think would be cooler is if A) color were practical, and B) the display could be updated in real-time, at no less than several dozen times per second, making full-fledged animation possible.

Re:That's all well and good... (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730883)

There's not going to be a big difference between a photon flung straight into your eyes and one that's reflected off something.

A red photon of X wavelength of the same energy will still be perceived the same whether it was reflected or not.

Now the difference could be in the spectrum.

The light from LEDs or CRT phosphors are more likely to be rather "narrow band" in spectrum. Basically the colours are created by having 3 narrow "mountains" of differing heights corresponding to Red, Green and Blue.

Whereas white light (or light from blackbody sources) reflecting off various stuff is more likely to generate wider "mountains".

I'm not sure if this will cause a perceivable difference in the generated image on screens. But I'm pretty sure there's a difference if you use the light for illuminating stuff e.g. a very narrow band red pigment lit by a real white light source will appear red, but could appear black under "white" light that's generated by red+green+blue LEDs (which is one of the reasons why white LED flashlights use phosphors).

Re:That's all well and good... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731279)

There's not going to be a big difference between a photon flung straight into your eyes and one that's reflected off something.

Perhaps, but until you can prove it, I have an awesome idea for something to sell on late-night infomercials!

Re:That's all well and good... (1)

deroby (568773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732105)

The spectrum might be in there for some reason, although IMHO when reading a book, it's pretty much black text on a monochrome piece of paper that I'm looking at anyway.

Technically there indeed won't be much difference whether the photon was sent directly or indirectly into the eye, but I think the difference in perception here comes from what's going on *around* the screen.
Eg. when a cloud passes by, the surrounding light-level diminishes by a factor x, your eyes adapt (slightly) to the overall changed condition by opening your retina and as a result the non-cloud-affected-screen-light seems to have gone up in light-"volume" by a factor x/n, where n is probably related to the surface of your screen vs your whole field of view. I wouldn't be surprised that when using 'reflection-based' screens, this goes much easier on the eye as the amount of photons hitting the eye-nerves is much more stable than with constant (overly-bright) back-lit screens.

PS: yes, my laptop has an 'Ambient Light Sensor', but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD it only works when I'm on battery power (**), and frankly I think it's a bit coarse in reacting to changing conditions anyway for the times I do get the chance to use it.

**: Does *anybody* know how to enable the damned thing when running on outlet power ? (= +90% of the time I'm using my computer) [Dell Latitude D830]
=> I'd be even extremely gratefull if someone could point me to a way to set the brightness in 'smaller steps' than is currently possible with Fn+Up/Down. For me, full brightness is too bright, but one notch below is in fact too dim already. When running on batteries, I can use a slidebar to set the maximum brightness the ALS should use, and that slidebar allows for much, much finer control !!

Re:That's all well and good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28730917)

Yes because those emitted photons are of much lower quality then the reflected kind.

Other reasons for eye strain (2, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731077)

1) One other difference is the image/light from many screens tends to flicker.

Many CRTs will flicker - the refresh rate is typically from 60-85Hz. The LCD panel backlight might also flicker a bit too. I'm not sure about the OLED tech.

For the people who say you can't see the difference, just wave your hand in front of the screen. Then go out in daylight and wave your hand. Notice a difference?

Alternatively, look at the screen from the side of your eye - for many people the image will not appear to be as "stable" or "steady" as a wall.

2) For a lot of display tech, the blacks aren't very black, so to have a high contrast ratio they make the whites much brighter and that could hurt your eyes more (compare the brightness of your display's whites with the brightness of a piece of white paper held up next to it).

Apparently with OLEDs the blacks should be much blacker than LCD blacks. But I suspect they're still going to be blindingly bright.

Anyway, you could try turning the brightness down so that the standard white on your display is no brighter than the white on a sheet of paper. Alternatively change the colour scheme so that the "text background whites" aren't so bright - make them a darker grey.

I've got my brightness set to 10 out of 100, and the text bankground white is still brighter than white paper lit by the flourescent lamps above. 100/100 is really too bright :).

Re:That's all well and good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28731113)

Check out Pixel Qi's transflective screens [pixelqi.com] .

Re:That's all well and good... (1)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732217)

Ever seen a good old paper-white grayscale CRT?

Simply adjust your monitor to suit - it aint that hard (except of course many LCDs have very poor spectra..)

A lot of people run their monitor eye-burningly bright, then complain of eye strain - a book doesnt actually have that much contrast!

It's just twice the light output (4, Informative)

vojtech (565680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729879)

It's just 75% increased emission rate, not 75% less energy. Continuous wave photoluminiscence doubles, though, according to the article. 75% more efficient would've been four times the output. So not THAT great, but still rather awesome.

Re:It's just twice the light output (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28729985)

for the lay person, you can still get the same brightness for less energy consumed though poindexter!

Re:It's just twice the light output (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730273)

...but still not 4x it

Re:It's just twice the light output (1)

ahecht (567934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730275)

I was just going to post that. Assuming power consumption/light output is linear, a 1.75 increase in luminosity is equivalent to a 42.9% reduction in power since (1.75-1)/1.75 = .429

Re:It's just twice the light output (2, Insightful)

ckthorp (1255134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730839)

Isn't "75% more efficient" only 75% more output? Efficiency is usually listed as lm/W which clearly would indicate 75% more efficient is 75% more lumens. On the other hand, "75% less energy" is 4 times the efficiency.

Any applications to TVs? (1)

eison (56778) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730315)

Does this mean I should wait more on a large-screen television, or do better OLEDs not have anything to do with TV in the forseeable future?

Re:Any applications to TVs? (3, Insightful)

Rattenhirn (1416947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730519)

Don't wait unless you plan to wait forever. There's always something new and shiny on the horizon!

TFA is so numerically challenged (5, Informative)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730507)

(1) OLED Breakthrough Yields 75% More Efficient Light
(2) ...reducing the ultra-thin lightsâ(TM) energy consumption by 75%
(3) increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times
(4) increases light intensity twofold.

*Four* numerical figures, and no two of them compatible in any way.

(1): "a 75% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.
(2): "reducing by 75%" means a factor of 4 better.
(3): "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75
(4): "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.

All incompatible. Wonder what the real numbers are?

Re:TFA is so numerically challenged (1)

ckthorp (1255134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28730863)

Well said -- wish I had points.

Re:TFA is so numerically challenged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28731939)

Number 4

(4): "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.

Is not a power efficiency number, rather it's an area efficiency number. By doubling the intensity you only need half the area to produce the same amount of light, regardless of power.

Re:TFA is so numerically challenged (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732007)

It's obviously somewhere between reality and some stuff they made up to win grant money.

Can't wait... (1)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731405)

....To fly over in my fusion powered flying car to pick some up on the way to the drug store for my telomere repairing anti-cancer pills.

Mmm, vague English grammar (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28731999)

The world needs more Lojbanists! [wikipedia.org]

"75% More Efficient Lights"--does the breakthrough mean that the lights produced are 75% more efficient, or that 75% more lights are being made that are efficient?

lab incandescent lights much more efficient (2, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732089)

Seven times more efficient according to recent article [nytimes.com] . Its fascinating you can teach an old dog new tricks with sufficient economic incentives. I welcome the competition among old and new technologies.

My favorite quote. . . (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28732411)

"The method using surface plasmon represents a new technology to enhance the emission efficiency of OLED. It is expected to greatly contribute to the development of new technologies in OLED and flexible display, as well as securing original technology," --Prof. Choi

Doesn't that just sound like something out of the Alpha Centauri tech tree?

Light emitting diodes tech is one of my favorite. It and all the inventions which derive from it, makes life look and feel as though we're truly in, "The Future" as I imagined it while watching Buck Rogers back in my childhood.

-FL

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?