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!

40" OLED Television Revealed at SID

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the screens-of-things-to-come dept.

Displays 196

deglr6328 writes "Seiko Epson has unveiled a massive 40 inch OLED display prototype at this years Society for Information Display (SID) symposium in Seattle. The display was printed on to a backplane containing the drive electronics with a specialized inkjet process using Phillip's PolyLED technology. Samsung and Phillips also showed large scale OLEDs they say can also be scaled up to 'television sizes.'"

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9332901)

w00t

Re:fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333256)

Why didn't they just say "one metre OLED TV" ? Then everyone would have known at once how big it was, not just americans.

First Post (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9332902)

FP!!!!!!

Re:First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9332911)

not!

expiration date? (5, Interesting)

DiniZuli (621956) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332968)

As allways in these OLED dicussions the question is:
How long before the display starts to degrade?
In other words: Have they solved the problem with OLEDs that they start degrading after a record holding short time?
When /. brings a story about that, ThEn OLEDs gets really really interesting (as opposed to now: they are 'just' really interesting;)

And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (5, Interesting)

jilbert (520628) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332910)

They've still got development to do. 260,000 colours aren't enough!

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332958)

True, that is only 6 bits per color.
It will not look very good as a TV screen, I think... as an information display it is OK.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333045)

Plasma and LCD screens make TERRIBLE TVs, but that doesn't stop people buying them...

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (2, Informative)

Johan Veenstra (61679) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333118)

How many bits per color are stored on a DVD. Yep, only 6, so I guess it's good enough.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333203)

Sorry, but completely wrong.

MPEG compression uses YUV color space, not RGB. Y is the luminance/intensity and uses 8 bit per pixel. U and V specify the color tone and use 8 bit each, but for groups of 4 pixels. So 4 pixels need (4*8)+8+8=48 bits, 12 per pixel. (This is useful because the human eye's has more luminance receptors than color receptors).
In this YUV model, every pixel can have one out of 2^24 colors, because it has its own intensity, it just needs to have the same color tone as the other 3 neighbours. To reproduce the colors on a RGB screen you need 24 bits per pixel, because you can't use the intensity trick with RGB.

See also http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dnwmt/html/yuvformats.asp

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333371)

Sorry, but NO digital system uses YUV colour space. MPEG - as with al colour subsampled systems - uses Y, Pb, Pr colour space.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333394)

The Samsung screen is more interesting! 17inch "full color", 1600 by 1200 at 400 lumens and they will be mass-producing by second half of next year!

-Karl

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (0)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333491)

You might see some banding but really it's enough to create the illusion anyways.

The problem is it's a 40" fucking TV.

If they made say 20-36" [ranges] TVs then more people could afford it and in turn sponsor the research into better displays. But no, make a 2000$ 40" TV [or whatever it costs] so only a handful of people will buy it [cuz afterall same money on CRT gets you way bigger].

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (2, Interesting)

lupin_sansei (579949) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333060)

So how many colours would be enough for a TV? How many colours are you really able to distinguish?

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333149)

The human eye apparently can distinguish less than 16 million colours (24-bit colour). However, I believe the colours it can distinguish are not evenly spread out through the colour space, so 32-bit colour might be an idea...

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (2, Interesting)

thogard (43403) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333426)

A decade ago when I got to play with a real 24 bit 1024x768 display on a sun 4/110, I wrote a program to display most of the colors 1/16 of them at a time. It turns out that out of the 16,777,216 colors you could tell the thing to display but to the human eye 8 million or so of them were brown and most of of the rest were grey.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (1)

binaryfinery (765601) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333180)

Seiko Epson's massive 40 inch prototype boasts a resolution of 1280 x 768 pixels (WXGA) and 260 000 colors. The company is planning to commercialize the technology by 2007. (Credit: Seiko Epson)

and the resolutions the same as I use on a 14' monitor. The picture would look like a sega genesis game

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333195)

If you're using Windows on a 14" monitor at 1280x768 you're going to go blind.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (1)

Ravadill (589248) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333422)

It's a television, any more than this is overkill for DVDs/TV ect.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333244)

Hang on, 260,000 colours? They're using HAM8!

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333345)

Or maybe they are able to utilize the full vga palette with clever color-changing synchronized to the horizontal refresh. Hmm? Didn't think of that, now did you?

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (3, Informative)

Sumocide (114549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333272)

LCD-TFT Monitors can also display only about 252000 colours. They create more colours by alternating between two colors every refresh. That's why displays who are manufacturer rated at 12 ms have a real refresh of more than 20ms.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (3, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333337)

A little OT, but here goes:

My dad was telling me about some of his work on old custom computer equipment back in the 70s or 80s. Basically, people were saying you couldn't do regular text along with graphics on the video equipment used, but he showed that you could; he switched video modes in the middle of screen refreshes.

Talk to an old timer who's past jobs combined electrical engineering and software engineering. You'll hear some fascinating stories about overcoming assumed limitations in resources. ( I suppose that applies to other professions as well, but you'll have to try your luck. )

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333346)

I used to similar tricks on one of my old computers (early 90s I guess), by changing graphics mode as the screen was being redrawn from hi-res/lo-colour to lo-res/hi-colour you could have a colourful border round the screen and hi-res text in the middle... never did find much of a use for it though!

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (5, Informative)

Lord Prox (521892) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333389)

They've still got development to do. 260,000 colours aren't enough!

They will do 24 bits in no time and you will see them in laptops PDA's [pocketpcwire.com] cameras [kodak.com] and cell phones [gsmarena.com] sooner than you think. [geek.com]
for more info on LEP/OLED displays try these...
Universal display [universaldisplay.com]
cambridge display tech [cdtltd.co.uk]
high efficency [universaldisplay.com]
transparent [universaldisplay.com]
flexible [universaldisplay.com]
stacked hi res [universaldisplay.com]

and some apps...
# Low-power, bright, colorful cell phones
# Full color, high-resolution, personal communicators
# Wrist-mounted, featherweight, rugged PDAs
# Wearable, form-fitting, electronic displays
# Full-color, high resolution, portable Internet devices and palm size computers
# High-contrast automotive instrument and windshield displays
# Heads-up instrumentation for aircraft and automobiles
# Automobile light systems without bulbs
# Flexible, lightweight, thin, durable, and highly efficient laptop screens
# Roll-up, electronic, daily-refreshable newspaper
# Ultra-lightweight, wall-size television monitor
# Office windows, walls and partitions that double as computer screens
# Color-changing lighting panels and light walls for home and office
# Low-cost organic lasers
# Computer-controlled, electronic shelf pricing for supermarkets and retail stores
# Smart goggles/helmets for scuba divers, motorcycle riders
# Medical test equipment
# Wide area, full-motion video camcorders
# Global positioning systems (GPS)
# Integrated computer displaying eyewear
# Rugged military portable communication devices

My favorite is the high efficency ceiling mount. Need white light [click] there you are. Want a change of pace go for blue sky with puffy white coulds [click] done.

These products are supposed to be cheap enough to do these things once mass production has begun.

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (1)

Ravadill (589248) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333427)

Also MSI make a fairly tame (feature wise) mp3 player, but it does have an OLED display to show off:

MSI Megaplayer [msi.com.tw]

Re:And only 3 to 5 years before I can buy one... (1)

swordboy (472941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333445)

Also - the 40 inches is made of up of very small tiles. Samsung recently announced [slashdot.org] a 17" single-panel OLED - the world's largest ever. The Epson piece pales in comparison to this. Samsung could tile their device as well and get something equally as large, or larger.

purple? (5, Funny)

werdnapk (706357) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332912)

Why is the lady in that picture purple? Is the display that bright that she matches the flowers? Or is there some funky radiation coming out of that thing that has given her a nice glowing purple tan?

Re:purple? (4, Funny)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332923)

Why is the lady in that picture purple?

She`s an Oompa-Loompa (the movie only showed the men... this is what their wives look like).

Re:purple? (1)

Blue Eagle 26 (683113) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332947)

Those lucky Oompa Loompas! they get to live in a candy factory and marry beautifal purple japanese maidens!

Re:purple? (1, Informative)

inio (26835) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332938)

Whatever it is, she better watch out for any people-eaters in the area.

Re:purple? (2, Insightful)

miruku (642921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333165)

either it's a god damn bright screen, or someone has tweaked the colours (esp. blue/red) to make the purple flower standout more. which is annoying, as the clarity of a large screen oled tv is supposedly one of it's main selling points, and if they have to screw with photos of an actual set, that makes me worry..

Re:purple? (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333347)

That picture would make me worry, too...if they had to tweak the image, you'd think they could have limited their tweaking to the portion of the image with the display in it.

I don't think the display's luminescense is causing the purple effect. Notice that the back of her hand, which is facing away from the display, is also purple.

Re:purple? (2, Informative)

Wellmont (737226) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333198)

The picture on the website has been altered to give the TV that extra "umph" of advertising glory. Obviously the site or person who took the picture doesn't want to give us a good idea of what it looks like but rather a "souped" up version of it...Thus we have purple asian lady, who looks like a fashion faux pas standing nex to a horribly saturated television in an environment which has had it's magenta's and cyan's tweeked.

Re:purple? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333334)

Since we can use the woman as a reference, maybe the picture could be untweaked to get the true picture back? :)

So... (0)

Zrech (578331) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332914)

What is this technology? The article wasnt exactly an article....

Re:So... (1)

sllim (95682) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332945)

OLEM displays.
Organic
Light
Emitting
Mice

Don't tell PETA they will flip and we will all be out a cool technology.

Re:So... (1)

emorphien (770500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332977)

Mmm, and if they're edible and taste like cheese, I see a great opportunity!

Re:So... (1)

lupin_sansei (579949) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333035)

Funny you should say that. At high school my friend was asked in his electronics exam what LED stood for. He got a bit mixed up with LEDs and LCDs and answered Liquid Emitting Diode.

Dupe (1, Informative)

ByteSlicer (735276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332916)

This was already mentioned here [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe (1)

morie (227571) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333064)

17" vs 40", I'd say there is a difference...

Re:Dupe (-1, Redundant)

ByteSlicer (735276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333081)

The 40" reference is in the update part of the post...

Tripe! (-1, Redundant)

nacturation (646836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333234)

It's official. Slashdot posts the story three times. It's not a dupe, it's a tripe!

Dithered (3, Funny)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332921)

My god, porn is going to look horribly dithered on this thing. Maybe by the time it is market viable they'll have that fixed.

Re:Dithered (1)

camzacid (734051) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332985)

Apart from the fact that if it doesnt display pr0n it will die a horrible death in the sales market

Re:Dithered (1)

kubrick (27291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333235)

My god, porn is going to look horribly dithered on this thing. Maybe by the time it is market viable they'll have that fixed.

I don't know, it could give it a sort of retro appeal... maybe people's tastes will change. :)

Re:Dithered (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333350)

Run your porno image collection through the Apple ][ screensaver that comes with the xscreensaver package. 4-color porn.

Personally, I prefer dithering and 8 bits...reminds me of the time I first discovered the subject. :)

I think... (5, Informative)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332927)

That the Epson display is not a single display at all (in that it isn't printed in one process), but a combination of smaller ones, more along the sizes of the Philips and Samsung ones.

I have seen the Philips display and I have to say the quality was good, there is slight horizontal banding where runs of the print head touch, but that's something that can be ironed out. Not quite up to consumer TV standards, maybe, but certainly showing promise.

It's single (1)

News for nerds (448130) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333115)

Do you have a clue on why the resolution of it is quite low compared to multiples of Philips's one?
Considering news value, patching panels to make bigger one won't make a feature as it is.

Re:It's single (1)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333397)

I don't know. The philips one was designed to be full resolution, but only part of the 40" screen (presumably they simply didn't have the fab sizes necessary to do the full size in one go initially, as epson didn't either as I mentioned). Quite why the res of Epson's screen is so low I really don't know though.

Making use of higher resolution? (4, Interesting)

NKJensen (51126) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332932)

The particular display mentioned has size, not resolution as its main quality; some of the other displays mentioned have high resolutions.

Which kinds of UI will benefit from such displays?

Can we expect something useful from e.g. virtual 3D viewing (remember those books with embedded 3D-items hidden in 2D pictures)?

Re:Making use of higher resolution? (3, Interesting)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332943)

Initially small UIs most likely, they already use very small OLED displays on devices afterall, it's just progress to start scaling that up.

Another advantage is that you should be able to make transparent displays with OLEDs, mounted on a sheet of glass, say.

Not quite sure what you mean about 3d though, from that point of view I can't see it being any different from an LCD, unless the display-on-glass concept somehow helps.

Re:Making use of higher resolution? (5, Informative)

emorphien (770500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332963)

Yeah, they're using OLEDs on small devices, but not ones with long service lives (generally). While they do attempt to encase the OLEDs, they don't know how long they'll last since they're unstable in oxygen using the current technology. Using them in cell phones and digital cameras is good because the expectation is that one doesn't keep the things for long.

But if you're buying an LCD for your computer or as a television, you want it to last more than a few years without degrading.

Re:Making use of higher resolution? (-1, Redundant)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332973)

Yes, that's built into the plans though. Small devices like mobile phones in the near future, where the lifetimes don't matter so much, and then in the next few years the stability should improve so that larger displays are practical. We'll see if that all goes to plan, but progress on it is looking good to date.

Re:Making use of higher resolution? (1)

emorphien (770500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332981)

Is there an echo in here? :)

Re:Making use of higher resolution? (0, Offtopic)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333002)

in here in here...

Re:Making use of higher resolution? (1)

Zzootnik (179922) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333496)

So what if there were multiple panes of this oled-on-glass sandwiched together...say 1024 of them...so you could make a gargantuan cube of glass and electronics that could display 3d images with actual positional data points... And all of it encased in a non-oxygenated block of glass. It'd probably be heavy as hell, and I don't know what kind of super video card it would take to drive it, but wow.... Holo-cube... I like the sound of that...

Well for a television (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333051)

This is pretty good. That's enough to do 720p HDTV, the second highest resolution. I mean the highest resolution worth having on a TV is 1920x1080, that's the max HDTV goes.

You also have to remember that bigger costs money as does higher res, and they are independant problems to deal with. That's why a 22" multi-sync computer monitor that does 2048x1536 costs more than a 36" NTSC TV with a tuner, PIP, etc. The NTSC TV onyl has to pull 720x480, makes it cheaper to produce at a given size.

I expect OLED displays will go the same as any other. You'll be able to get desk sized displays that meet or exceed the resolution of 60" displays. The reason is simple: Computer displays are used up close for precision work, and people will drop $500+ to have a high resolution one. Large displays are susually used for entertainment, and there's just a limit to how much resolution is worth the money. After all, a display that does 4000+ pixels across does you no good if you are driving it with an HDTV signal that is less than half that.

inkjet is one thing, but what about on a press (5, Interesting)

emorphien (770500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332936)

This is pretty cool, and it's actually one thing my research is tied to. I dunno how long it's gonna take but we're hoping to be able to print these things on a variety of press types, at much faster speeds than inkjet allowing the product to be a lot less expensive.

Right now though it's too costly and inkjet is definitely not ideal for large scale production, but we're definitely headed in the right direction. The biggest issue is finding materials that will work in the product that can be printed. It's a big PITA.

That and how long with the OLED display they've built last? OLEDs don't like oxygen and the damn things will basically decompose. For large expensive displays like that there's still concerns in that area.

Either way, awesome approach, using the different colored nozzles is pretty clever, a lot of the current systems require separate coatings to be applied through various means. It'll still be a lot faster and cheaper down the road when large presses can be used.

Someone here made a calculation, and if we could print at 2000fpm on our Sunday 2000 Heidelberg press, all the displays in the world could be printed in a couple hours. Not like that would be practical or even likely.

Re:inkjet is one thing, but what about on a press (2, Insightful)

Osty (16825) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332980)

That and how long with the OLED display they've built last? OLEDs don't like oxygen and the damn things will basically decompose. For large expensive displays like that there's still concerns in that area.

Who cares how long they last? OLED manufacturing should be cheap enough that you could realistically replace your screen every year and still be under the price of a similar LCD screen after 5-10 years. I know I'd be willing to buy a cheap new screen every 1000 hours or so if I could replace my current RPTV HDTV set with a nice flat panel that doesn't have the problems of plasma (horrible burn-in potential) at a price point much lower than LCD or plasma displays currently available.


This could open up a whole new avenue of revenue to TV manufacturers, following the razor/razorblade model. It'd be nice to see a standard set for replaceable screens, so even though I may buy a Mitsubishi set, I could replace it with a Pioneer screen or a Sony screen, or a no-name Chinese knock-off if I want to save a few dollars. Unfortunately, I doubt that'll happen.

Re:inkjet is one thing, but what about on a press (1)

emorphien (770500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332995)

I wonder what else we can apply that mentality to... Hmm.

Don't worry your speaker drivers are made of crackers. They sound better but the OLEMs will eat them, but since they're so cheap you can replace them often.

Well maybe that doesn't work.

Maybe... Saran wrap car windshields?
styrofoam chairs?

Funny you mention it, light bulbs are going the opposite direction, with the led arrays that are supposed to last forever, and ever.

Well, anything really (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333078)

So long as the quality and price justify it. My speakers cost about $2000 for a pair of them. Because of that expense, I expect that they will last for quite a long time, and they will. They are well build, from materials that last. Provided they aren't abused, there's no reason they can't work for 20-50 years. However, if you could offer me speakers with equal or greater quality that cost only $100, but would last only a year, I'd buy them.

It's a win for me, any way you hash it. First, technology is going to improve enough in 20 years, that I'd want to replace my speakers before then anyhow. This lets me basically stay on the cutting edge all the time. Second, it makes damage much less of a worry. I have to be careful with these speakers, as it would be a major expense to replace them. I would not need to worry so much if I'd only be out $100. Finally, the value of a dollar today is more than the value of a dollar tomorrow (because of inflation). I'd be better of economically to spend $100/year and invest the rest than $2000 now.

All that OLEDs will need to do is be cheap enough in comparison to the competition, and the disposable idea works fine. If they cost as much as LCDs, no thaks, I'll take the LCD and be happy. If they cost 1/10th as much, sure I'll take them, even if they have to be replaced once a year.

This isn't out of the realm of possibility. Remember these things are PRINTED on sheets using ink jets. Cheap technology, and we have much cheaper mass-production printers called web presses. Also the only part that needs to be replaced is the OLED screen itself, not the supporting electronics. S0 it really could end up being like razor blades. But the more expensive holder (handle) up front and then replace the screen (blade) when it needs it.

As an added bonus, OLEDs are organic (hence the O) and so not nearly the environmental problem of things like CRTs, even if replaced more often.

Re:Well, anything really (4, Insightful)

squoozer (730327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333300)

I don't often feel the need to make a comment but...

I wish people wouldn't say that everything "organic" is good - its a chemistry term. Organic in this context doesn't mean natural. The material in these displays is not found in nature and is quite probably highly toxic. Organic (in the chemistry context) means made of carbon and hydrogen and possibly including other atoms (for instance one of these OLED molecules contains Fluorine). The nerve gas sarin is "organic" is it good for you? What about DDT? How about plastic? Yes; plastic is organic but it doesn't biodegrade.

Ok. I have got that off my chest time to go back to lurking

Organic LEDs (1)

LemonYellow (244336) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333310)

Since the organic in OLED means that it is made of carbon chain compounds, rather than it being brewed from fertiliser-free potatoes, why would that in itself make OLEDs more environmentally-friendy?

Yes, there is going to be a lot less of an OLED display to dispose of than a CRT, plus it won't include a hunk of (barium? lead?) glass as a screen. To be able to say "OLEDs are organic (hence the O)" we'd need to ask whether the organic compounds are persistent in the environment.

It's not that I give two hoots for the environment, you understand, but if you know that the organic compounds in OLEDs are biodegradable / environmentally inert then I'd be interested to hear about the chemistry of them.

Re:inkjet is one thing, but what about on a press (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333131)

Hmm... how about, the environment is kinda messed up already, and having everyone throwing out their OLED TVs annually would really not help? Okay, they're meant to be environmentally more sound to produce, and probably to dispose of, but it's not an idea I'm massively fond of. If someone can come back and tell me the parts are easily recylable that would help...

Or, skipping that argument, I don't really feel like having to move TVs around annually. Sure, OLEDs are much lighter and smaller than CRTs, and even than LCD displays, but it's still not an idea that appeals.

Re:inkjet is one thing, but what about on a press (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333148)

(ignoring the environmental argument because I don't have the information to discuss it, and perhaps I just don't care :)


Or, skipping that argument, I don't really feel like having to move TVs around annually. Sure, OLEDs are much lighter and smaller than CRTs, and even than LCD displays, but it's still not an idea that appeals.

Why would you have to move a TV to replace a screen? If it's done properly, you'd simply be able to unclip the old, clip in the new, and you're done. You shouldn't even have to take the monitor off of the stand or wall. Anyway, I end up going behind my TV once or twice a year to hook up different components, to rearrange the cabling, or even just to clean back there, so even if I had to do that to replace a screen it would be much less work than moving around a relatively small 48" RPTV.


I'm sure I'm just dreaming here, and we'll not see this available any time soon, but it would be very nice if we did. Any OLED manufacturers listening out there? Replaceable screens with a standard interface, please!

Re:inkjet is one thing, but what about on a press (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333164)

Thing is, everyone keeps mentioning pulling the screen out, and replacing it. Except, as far as I understand it, there's not much else to an OLED except the inputs and bezel. Aren't the polymers in fact printed onto the circuitry that drives this stuff? That doesn't sound so detachable to me...

Or am I missing something...

Re:inkjet is one thing, but what about on a press (2, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333213)

Thing is, everyone keeps mentioning pulling the screen out, and replacing it. Except, as far as I understand it, there's not much else to an OLED except the inputs and bezel. Aren't the polymers in fact printed onto the circuitry that drives this stuff? That doesn't sound so detachable to me...

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that you're correct that the polymers are printed on the screen itself. However, you still need all of the "other stuff" that surrounds the screen. You need to get the video signal to the screen, and in such a way that the OLED polymers understand it (ie, conversion may need to happen between the DVI/YPrPb/RGBHV/S-vid/Composite inputs and the screen itself). Along with that, you need all of the hardware responsible for receiving an input, and preferably multiplexing multiple inputs (not a big deal for a PC monitor, but a huge deal for a TV set). Add in anything else you need, such as a tuner, IR or RF receiver, circuitry to decode and act upon that input, etc, and it turns out that there's more to a TV set than just the screen.


Right now, the screen is the largest cost, though, so if you could get high-quality screens at low prices the up-front cost of a TV set should drop drastically. How would you like to be able to buy a very thin (hangable!) 40" flat-screen HDTV for $300-500? Sure, you may have to spend $100 every 1000 hours for a new screen (or push it longer if you don't mind the decrease in quality, since OLEDs don't just suddenly stop working like a lightbulb, but instead fade away; I'm pulling the 1000 hours figure out of my butt, so don't recite it as religion -- mean time to failure could be much more or much less), but that's a drop in the bucket compared to paying $5,000-20,000 for a similar plasma set, or $2,000-10,000 for a similar LCD set. Plus, you'll no longer have to worry so much about accidental damage to the screen, because it would be easy to replace at a reasonable price (let's see you do that with an LCD!). I'd love it simply for the fact that I could replace my screen for $100 rather than have my set professionally calibrated every 2-3 years at $300-500 per calibration to keep everything in tune (settings drift over time as the projectors in a RPTV age). Even if the initial set was priced at RPTV prices ($1000-1500 for a ~40-45 inch set), replacing the screen would be cheaper and quicker than a re-calibration.

Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLED. (2, Insightful)

sllim (95682) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332939)

One word: COST.

I read a little while ago about how when OLED displays age they loose there color. At the time I thought that while a TV may look nice at first, who wants to spend a grand on a TV that is gonna look bad in a couple of years.

I was assuming of course that the price point of a large screen OLED would be comparable to a large screen LCD which is comparable to a traditional set.

Sometimes it is nice to be wrong.

Basicaly it sounds to me like they create a large circuit board and 'print' the pixels on top of it with a large ink jet printer.

I know I am simplifying it tremendously, but it sounds a hell of a lot less costly then traditional and LCD sets.

Am I right to assume that something like this could seriously come down in price?

I imagine that eventually the price point would be so that when the colors faded you pitched the old set, bought a new one and thought nothing more of it then if you were upgrading a video game console.

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (2, Insightful)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332965)

Funnily enough you're not simplifying it a great deal. Clearly it's not easy to actually do, but what they're actually trying to do is effectively just that.

No reason why it couldn't come down in price just like anything else. More importantly though the lifetime of the OLEDs is increasing, it's hoped that by 2008/2009 they'll be good enough to be used in commercial TV sets properly.

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (2, Insightful)

gingerTabs (532664) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332972)

imagine that eventually the price point would be so that when the colors faded you pitched the old set, bought a new one and thought nothing more of it then if you were upgrading a video game console.

Great, now we're churning out even more consumer waste to put in landfills.

How can this make you happy?

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333009)

Maybe if we're lucky it'll be more easily recyclable than a CRT (i.e., it won't have all the lead and stuff), but you're right that going from a long-lasting device to a disposable one isn't good.

At least it sounds more recycleable; it's apparantly a PCB + organic compound, which isn't that bad, right?

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333223)

It does actually occur, it might be possible to send your TV back to the manufacturer for a re-print. Still, I'd prefer to have it last, myself...

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (5, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333049)

"who wants to spend a grand on a TV that is gonna look bad in a couple of years." You're an optimist. With today's OLED technology it will look bad in mere months. These things make plasma TVs seem like they were built to last a lifetime, by comparison. Last I've heard, OLEDs are rated for something like 1000 hours life. At, say, 8 hours a day use, that's 4 months. (And 8h per day is already less than you'll have it in use when it gets shared between you, your SO and maybe a kid using it for the game console.) But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the brightness doesn't even decrease uniformly across the whole spectrum. Each of the 3 colour components has its own decay time. So it probably will take less than 4 months before the image starts to get a bit of a wrong hue. I don't know about you, but I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to image quality. I'm one of those nuts who bought a 9800 XT just to be able to play with 6x FSAA and 16x Aniso, and are already waiting for the X800 XT for the same reason. So something which is pretty much guaranteed to slowly go the wrong hue, I just don't need it. Not as a computer monitor, and not as a TV. Even if it was for free.

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (4, Informative)

rve (4436) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333126)

When I was still at uni, studying numbercrunching, one of the thing the department (phys. chem.) was working on was trying to extend the lifespan of the blue colour OLED, and to invent a white one (the holy grail as it were), research sponsored by the EU I think. The best they had lasted mere months, whereas red and monochrome (yellowish iirc) lasted pretty much indefinitely.

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (4, Informative)

mindriot (96208) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333191)

I think the lifetime is more around 10,000 hours. In one of the recent /. discussions relating to OLEDs there was a discussion about this, can't seem to find it though. This article [pcworld.com] does mention 10,000 hours, and so does this very interesting OLED Technology Roadmap [usdc.org] (PDF). It actually says about the performance targets that by 2004, the lifetime for 300 cd/m^2 should be about 10k hours, while for 2007 and 2010, the aim is 20k and respectively 40k hours. Note: I just skimmed that document, but it should be an interesting read...

hype my own post (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333209)

I think it might be this post [slashdot.org] you are referring to?

For the rest: This technology isn't even on the market yet. The manufacturers themselves say "we're still developing it" - duh, yeah it sucks BECAUSE IT'S NOT DONE. When the oled display you bought down at the Office Depot starts "losing color" after four months use THEN you know-it-alls might have something to discuss - until then you're just a whisper in the wind.

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (5, Informative)

Elledan (582730) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333219)

"Last I've heard, OLEDs are rated for something like 1000 hours life."

That was a typo. The real number was 10,000 hours, and this is the time the blue component of an OLED display lasts before fading. The green and red components last about 20,000-30,000 hours. There is still a lot of improvement to be made in stabilizing the organic componenents of OLEDs, so expect those numbers to improve over time.

Also, don't forget that an LCD display last also about 10,000-15,000 hours, after which the backlight has to be replaced (usually about as, if not more expensive than buying a new display). CRTs don't last forever, either. After about 20,000 hours the brightness of a CRT will gradually degrade.

Considering that OLED is a relatively new technology it would be quite foolish to label it as being impractical/useless, since there is still a lot of room for improvement (we're looking at prototypes here!).

At 4 hours a day thats 14 years for a CRT (1)

voss (52565) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333470)

At 8 hours a day of active use thats 7 years for a CRT. 7 years is beyond what most computers last versus 3 1/2 for LCD/ OLED which means you might have to replace the monitor while you still have the computer.

My Phillips 19" crt does 1900x1440 and cost about $250 new two years ago...so unless you need desk space...I really dont see why LCD monitors are so hot.

Re:Wow, I now I understand the implications of OLE (2, Interesting)

RandoMBU (740204) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333271)

As a consumer option, this technology has a long way to go. As it stands now, with their 1000 hour life, uneven color decay, and the potential for waste buildup... no company would ever try to market this as a viable consumer product. The point of this demonstration is proof of concept. To that end I think they have done an incredible job. This is a brand new technology with some admitted faults, but they have sucessfully demonstrated that it has the potential to be commercially viable in the future. No one claims that it is a finished technology right now, so evaluating it as such doesn't make much sense.

Can't wait (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9332949)

mmmmmmm, Baywatch

Great but... (1)

Insurgent2 (615836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332960)

When's the Heathkit coming out??

Or the inkjet catridge refill kit so I can print them on my Epson Stylus??

I call BS (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9332961)

http://optics.org/articles/news/10/6/4/1/samsung

This is photoshopped. The image on the screen is more clear that the detail of the stand it is framed in. The detail of the image on the screen and the fram should be on a par. But they are not.

That is BS. Credit of the photo is samsung themselves, so nobody outside of samsung saw it for real.

I am not saying samsung doesn't have an OLED display, I am just saying that that picture is a crock of PR shit if ever I saw one.

I am hoping I am wrong and we get awesome screens in the future.... but I just can't believe that photo.

You must also be suspicious of me being a samsung astroturfer "I can't believe it".

tinfoil hats abound

Re:I call BS (1)

Xrikcus (207545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332983)

Maybe for the Samsung, I don't know, no reason to assume they'd be cheating. The Philips one is certainly not a mockup though, and I know the Samsung is supposed to be slightly brighter, so its perfectly possible.

Re:I call BS (1)

Da w00t (1789) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333163)

The image has been color "corrected". If you whip out the gimp, and use the Color Balance tool and ramp everything everything twards yellow, the woman's skin tone on her face, and hands is corrected.

It looks like they had poor lighting for the photo, didn't like the off-white background behind the set, and tried to "fix" it.

As to the quality of the image in the set, it's a fripping jpeg. It's going to look like shit.

Dear Epson, please print me a circular screen... (1)

Snart Barfunz (526615) | more than 10 years ago | (#9332989)

I just need this one part to finish my Interocitor [amazon.com] and communicate with Metaluna

This may be redundant.. (5, Insightful)

sinner0423 (687266) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333016)

But why is it that every single flat panel television is just completely too expensive? I love looking at them when I go shopping, but I fail to see the point in spending between $2000-$5000 for one of these displays. I don't care how many languages it speaks or what O/S it runs. What is the problem here? Is it really that expensive to produce large scale OLED/LCD/plasma displays? It seems regular ol' televisions have gone down in price, why not these larger flat panels? Is it going to be another 10-20 years before I can afford a reasonably priced unit?

Re:This may be redundant.. (4, Informative)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333098)

Probably 2 things:

1. People want to buy them at that price

2. They are more expensive to produce than CRTs.

The picture ain't that good either. The geometry is better than a badly-aligned CRT (standard in consumer TV sets, even of $2000!), but the color quality is much, much worse. The responsetime is usually not good either, and while the viewing angle is getting bette, there usually is a blue or green background color when looking at a large angle.

I am looking around for a new TV set. I checked some different makes of CRT TVs and it amazes me how bad the geometry is on 2000 Euro TV sets, when compared to 200 Euro computer monitors. And it usually is not even customer-settable! Every computer monitor has these 5 buttons that allow you to align many things using an onscreen menu, but on TV sets this is hidden in a service menu that is only accessible when you know the secret code.

A question (4, Interesting)

ThinWhiteDuke (464916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333046)

Can any knowledgable slashdotter answer a simple question: Why is it difficult to produce large OLED display? I understand that it more or less amounts to printing the pixels onto a substrate. If one can make 17" OLED display, where is the engineering complexity in making a 40" display?

Re:A question (4, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333208)

Thats an easy one to answer!

they have only got an A4 printer...

Re:A question (1)

SagSaw (219314) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333405)

If one can make 17" OLED display, where is the engineering complexity in making a 40" display?

It probably has to do with manufacturing yield. For every pixel and/or unit of area on the display, their is a certain probability that there will be a defect in that pixel/area. Say your process is known to produce one defect per 10-million pixel-sized areas on a 17" 1024x768 display. For each screen, you have about an 8% chance there will be at least one bad pixel. If you scale that up to a 40" display, which would have 5 times the area, you would have about a 34% chance there will be at least one bad pixel. Of course, a certain small number of bad pixels per display is probably acceptable. Point is, however, that as the area of the display increases, the number of manufacturing defects per display also increases. At some point, you're throwing too many displays away due to bad pixels to be profitable.

it's spelled philips (2, Informative)

wdebruij (239038) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333071)

it's spelled `philips', not phillip's or phillips. Just look at the URL.

Re:it's spelled philips (0)

adzoox (615327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333398)

Being a Philip Smith - I'm glad you pointed that out.

Excuse me... (1)

CheshireCat (73975) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333086)

I just need to go change my pants. Seriously though, if the wear issue in early OLED stuff is fixed, this can't come soon enough. 2007 is too damn far away!

I just hope that the simple and reliable manufacturing methods (at least, that's how it sounds) will bring the cost way, way down. Hopefully manufacturers don't get way too greedy and price these similarly to existing tech (or higher), and gouge the consumer for massive profits. I'd imagine that wouldn't last for long, though, because a competitor could undercut such a price and still make a tidy profit per unit..

Durability? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333142)

I thought OLED's still had issues with durability.
Red & green lasting for 20.000 hrs, but blue for only about 2.000 hrs. They probably solved that problem, but I can't find any info on it.

when too much, is never enough? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333182)

Microsoft Brasil Decries Government Use of Linux By REUTERS

Published: June 3, 2004

Filed at 10:11 p.m. ET

SAO PAULO, Brazil (Reuters) - Microsoft [slashdot.org] Brasil's president, Emilio Umeoka, said that ideology led Brazil's government astray when it decided to adopt Linux's free software in public sector computers.

``If the country closes itself off again -- as it did when it protected its information technology, 10 years from now we will wake up and be dominant in something insignificant,'' Umeoka told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

``My boss once said: 'Irrelevance is the beginning of the end','' the Brazilian executive of Seattle-based Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O) said.

In the 1980s, Brazil protected its IT sector with high tariffs meant to curb imports and stimulate national industry. Economists now believe the country lost an opportunity at that time to attract much-needed foreign investment.

Although he sees Brazil as one of the software giant's most promising markets -- where revenues reached 925 million reais ($293 million) in the last fiscal year, Umeoka said policies of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's government were steering the country in the wrong direction.

``The sectors, ministries and governments with which we have had dialogue we have managed to work well with. Where we have encountered an approach much more ideological, not based on the technical area, we fail to discuss effectively,'' he said.

Umeoka said the government's decision to adopt Linux in the public sector could hurt the Microsoft community in Brazil. The company has 10,000 partners with 45,000 indirect employees that generate 1 billion reais ($317 million) in taxes annually.

As part of Lula's pro-free software policy, the government began training 2,000 public employees and switching out the Microsoft operating systems used on 300,000 federal computers and installing Linux.

``I don't know if this is the best way to attract investment into the country,'' the executive said. ``I know this is not the best way to create a base of development from which to export because there's no revenue from something free.''

Mirror of Article Text (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333282)

SID showcases organic televisions

3 June 2004

Large displays based on organic light-emitting diode technology make Society for Information Display debut.

Large displays based on organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology were all the rage at this year's Society for Infant Death (SID) symposium, which has just taken place in Seattle, US. Seiko Epson, Philips and Samsung took the opportunity to dildo their latest successes in scaling their manufacturing technology during the 23-28 May event.

Seiko Epson

Having already developed small OLED screens for digital cameras, shavers, mobile phones, penis, and other electronic items, the world's leading display makers are now in a race to develop larger versions for televisions and computer screens.

The attraction is easy to understand. Unlike competing LCD technology, OLED displays are made from luminescent virgin semiconductors and combine wide goatviewing angles with high contrast and short response times. However, until now it was not clear if the fabrication process could be scaled up to suit large displays.

Those fears can now be put to rest thanks to the news that Epson has made the world's first 40 inch full-colour OLED TV, Samsung a 17 inch monitor and Philips a 13 inch demonstrator.

Samsung

Seiko Epson's massive 40 inch prototype goatse boasts a resolution of 1280 x 768 pixels (WXGA) and 260 000 colors. The company is planning to commercialize the technology by 2007.

In contrast, Samsung's 17 inch OLED monitor is smaller but has a higher resolution of 1600 x 1200 (UXGA). The Korean electronics sweatshops are now setting up a production line to make active-matrix OLED displays.

Philips

Philips was also keen to promote its OLED advances. The dumpling electronics firm was showing a color 13 inch "PolyLED" TV prototype with a goatse resolution of 576 x 324 pixels which it says shows the feasibility of scaling up to large gaping displays. A polymer-OLED TV could be a reality within five years and the application it has in mind is stretchscreen 30 inch TVs with a goatse resolution of 1365 x 768 (WXGA).

Both Philips and Epson fabricate their displays by using specially developed inkjet stemcell printing processes that deposit light-emitting inks (embryonic material from aborted fetusii) onto a pixellated backbone. In effect the screems is printed onto a substrate that contains the ddt-rich display's drive electronics.

The Philips process uses a printer with four dildo-heads and a total of 256 piezo-driven fo'schnizzles. Red, green and grits sub-chitlins are niggardly made by ink droplets fried from different bitchnozzles. Working with the print-head meth manufacturer Spectra, Philips says that it has developed a system to print goatse displays up to 24 inches. Seiko-Epson uses a similar scheme to create its 40 inch OLED goatse display.

Samsung has taken a different approach. Instead of working with polymer OLED materials it is using small-molecule OLED materials. The pixels of this type of display are traditionally made by spraying the OLED material through a patterned shadow mask. To date, the performance of the mask has limited display size to just a few inches. Samsung has got round the problem by developing a new patterning process which scans a laser across a film of the organic material to create individual pixels.

Author
Oliver Graydon is editor^Htroll of Optics.org and Opto & Laser Europe pederast magazine.

Whats so good about 260K colours? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333413)

Given that analogue TV sets/monitors can effectively do a virtually infinite range of colours how exactly is this an advancement? But then again , lots of things in the digital domain pretend to be great when they first come out but are actually a step backwards compared to the analogue alternative (eg 14 bit CD players vs Vinyl, MP3 vs CD, DAB vs FM) and people swallow it hook & line...

Lifespan is pathetic! Contrast and colors fade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9333431)

Lifespan is pathetic! Contrast and colors fade rapidly.

This is what I have heard.

nothing is as good as a tube in 2004, but this is so short a lifespan it will generate class action lawsuits if you can get the salesmen to lie on videotape.

I asked one dude and they said 20 years.

hah!

try 3 max in constant use, or less

Flat is overrated (1)

Tikiman (468059) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333480)

Go with the tube, its more reliable, cheaper, and the picture is great. Plasma/LCD can't even display true 1080i anyway, which requires 1920 x 1080 resolution, which a lot of HD broadcasts are in - your shiny new Plasma TV has to downsample the image. If you're just looking to get in the HD game, a 30" tube is an incredible upgrade and its pretty affordable.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?