Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Sony Begins OLED Mass Production

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the not-a-moment-too-soon dept.

Displays 193

Dodger73 writes "According to their press release at sony.net, Sony beings mass production of full color OLED displays at 3.8" size for their Clie PEG-VZ90 'Personal Entertainment Handheld.' The press release claims, that their 'Super Top Emission' technology reaches 150cd/m^2; at the familiar 1000:1 contrast ratio. Not quite the 19" display I'd like for my computer at home, but definitely a step in the right direction."

cancel ×

193 comments

For those of you who don't yet know... (5, Informative)

JamesD_UK (721413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255140)

OLED = Organic Light-Emitting Diode [wave-report.com]

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255156)

MM""""""""`M_MMP"""""""MM_MM'"""""`MM_MM'"""""`MM_ MMP"""""YMM_M""""""""M
MM__mmmmmmmM_M'_.mmmm__MM_M'_.mmm._`M_M'_.mmm._`M_ M'_.mmm._`M_Mmmm__mmmM
M'______MMMM_M_________`M_M__MMMMMMMM_M__MMMMMMMM_ M__MMMMM__M_MMMM__MMMM
MM__MMMMMMMM_M__MMMMM__MM_M__MMM___`M_M__MMM___`M_ M__MMMMM__M_MMMM__MMMM
MM__MMMMMMMM_M__MMMMM__MM_M._`MMM'_.M_M._`MMM'_.M_ M._`MMM'_.M_MMMM__MMMM
MM__MMMMMMMM_M__MMMMM__MM_MM._____.MM_MM._____.MM_ MMb_____dMM_MMMM__MMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMMMM_ MMMMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMMM

_____________MM"""""""`YM_MMP"""""YMM_MP""""""`MM_ M""""""""M
_____________MM__mmmmm__M_M'_.mmm._`M_M__mmmmm..M_ Mmmm__mmmM
_____________M'________.M_M__MMMMM__M_M.______`YM_ MMMM__MMMM
_____________MM__MMMMMMMM_M__MMMMM__M_MMMMMMM.__M_ MMMM__MMMM
_____________MM__MMMMMMMM_M._`MMM'_.M_M._.MMM'__M_ MMMM__MMMM
_____________MM__MMMMMMMM_MMb_____dMM_Mb._____.dM_ MMMM__MMMM
_____________MMMMMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMMMM_ MMMMMMMMMM

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (4, Insightful)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255187)

These translate into image quality and clarity that could previously viewed only on CRT (cathode ray tube) displays.

Even after all these years, CRT is still the standard. Amazing...

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (3, Insightful)

LousyPhreak (550591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255316)

which is imho because of a two simple reasons:

price (you still pay a lot less for a crt)
resolution (you can use any resolution on a crt, on lcd's you are limited to the built in resolution, important especially for newer games if you dont want to buy every half year a new pc)

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (3, Informative)

saha (615847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255794)

CRTs also have other advantages, of higher viewing angle than LCDs and higher color gamut and larger dynamic range. I still prefer using a LaCie Electron Blue [lacie.com] CRT to do my Photoshop work. Most video cards RAMDACs are limited to 8-bit (exceptions I can think of are SGI Onyx IR and Tezro [sgi.com] systems and other specialized gfx cards), CRTs could easily do 10-bit, 12-bit color per pixel. If you're in the print and publishing industry you'll still want to use a CRT unless the 21" CRT hulk is crowding your workspace, or a radiologist who needs 10-bit [matroxmed.com] or greater grayscale to discern which legions in the x-ray have a tumor. I don't want my radiologist looking at no 8-bit (256 shade) video card and monitor for my X-rays. I haven't seen any specs on what the OLEDs can do. All that stated is that its comparable, which is vague and ambiguous to me.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10256037)

While the characteristics you point out are advantages for CRTs, they are not the reasons that make them "the standard." They are that because of image quality. I.e. you can get nice bright images, and you can get the closest thing that's possible to true colors...

From a demanding graphic user's point-of-view price and resolution aren't that important, they'll choose the monitor that has the right resolution and pay whatever the price is (or buy several monitors at different resolutions). What this user needs is a monitor that displays light aquamarine at 40% brightness when the color is supposed to be light aquamarine at 40% intensity. That's where CRTs are better than other monitors.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (1)

baker_tony (621742) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255344)

Yeah, but if CRT technology stood still over "all these years", I think I'd want an LCD by now... :-)

I LOVE the spec's on the OLED, Response time of 0.01 Mil. sec!!! Contrast ratio of 1000:1, sweeeet.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (4, Insightful)

pVoid (607584) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255508)

Yes, I was seeing exactly that: response time of 0.01 ms...

That's actually better response than a standard CRT!!!

(Math behind that assumption: 75Hz monitor has a 0.013s, ie 13ms response time - and I'm going easy, the worst case scenario is 26ms, in case the change request happens just after the beam has scanned a particular pixel)

Leave it to sony though, to somehow embed their proprietary video codec into this screen and not allow you to use DivX (like they are doing with MDs... MDs IMHO were the coolest technology to be available forever, yet they never picked up because of their stupid reluctancy to allow for mp3s).

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (3, Insightful)

k98sven (324383) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255663)

Even after all these years, CRT is still the standard. Amazing...

Amazing, why? What's so bad about them?
It's a fundamentally simple design, which has had lots of room for improvement. -Like the internal combustion engine.

And like the combustion engine, that means there's a high barrier to get rid of them.
So, while they are going to be replaced eventually.. it's hardly strange that they haven't been yet.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255994)

It's a fundamentally simple design, which has had lots of room for improvement. -Like the internal combustion engine.

Good analogy! My CRT releases about as much heat as a combustion engine.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (0, Troll)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255730)

Even after all these years, CRT is still the standard. Amazing...
They are? And here I thought I preferred the sharpness and perfect geometry of LCDs.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (1)

Jagasian (129329) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255800)

...and all of that free motion blur! Oh wait a second, thats one of the disadvantages to an LCD. Great for static, native resolution images (e.g. text), but the second something is animated, CRTs become king.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (1)

barawn (25691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255892)

They are? And here I thought I preferred the sharpness and perfect geometry of LCDs.

You can get perfect geometry on an LCD (Trinitrons are a simple example, but there are others) and you can get the same sharpness of LCDs as well (but only with much, much more expensive models).

You can't fix the fundamental problems of LCDs at all (pixel response times, low brightness, low contrast ratio).

Hence why CRTs are the standard. An expensive CRT is still the "perfect" way to display an image. Amazing how correct people got it the first time they tried to do it.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (4, Insightful)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256023)

Its actually a horrible, wasteful way of doing it. But at the time vacuum tubes were are we knew how to make. Since then billions of dollars and tons of man-hours have gone into perfecting them. Current CRT technology is just about as far as one could possibly push it. It WILL be surpassed very soon by OLED or one of the other up-and-coming technologies. LCD also is probably near its limit.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (2, Insightful)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256126)

You can get perfect geometry on an LCD (Trinitrons are a simple example, but there are others) and you can get the same sharpness of LCDs as well (but only with much, much more expensive models).

Trinitrons, though they have square/rectangular pixels, don't have perfect geometry because they lack subpixel-addressability. That's why cleartype only works on LCD screens. Additionally, the high end of LCD (ibm's 200 dpi screens) is much, much sharper than the high end of CRT. What distorts people's opinion about the relative sharpness of LCD and CRT is that CRT's often can be driven at higher resolutions than their dot pitch supports, which just makes things fuzzier (think: showing a 640*480 image on a regular TV, it's usable, but it's fuzzy). With LCD's you're pretty much stuck at their native resolution.

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (2, Informative)

NoMercy (105420) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255781)

The main thing is there light emmiting, thus you can get a true black (no light emmited) and strong colors, where as with a LCD display where the light is blocked off, which not only means you've got a huge great big backlight which can't produce the same brightness in many cases as other displays, but you don't get a true black as liquid crystals can never block off 100% of the light.

Personally I'm hoping to see OLED displays in case-mods, since unlike LCD's they won't light up the area even when black vivid images could be shown inside a case :)

For those of you that only beleive Wikipedia... (4, Informative)

't is DjiM (801555) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255495)

Wikipedia-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia states that the main advantage is that (apart from the contrast ratio and the response times) it doesn't need back-lighting and thus has a lower power-consumption. Will this also be true for very large OLED displays? I can imagine that, since every single pixel has to light up by itself, it can be more efficient to use a backlight. Anyone has an idea about the power consumption per pixel for OLEDs and TFT/LCD?

Re:For those of you who don't yet know... (1)

whimdot (591032) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256110)

I thought it was the vocative of LED all these years

its not (4, Funny)

booyah (28487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255158)

Its not the size that matters, its how you use it... I will be very happy to have my 3.8"

Re:its not (-1, Offtopic)

strictfoo (805322) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255222)

At least get your sig right.

How do you stop your children from realizing your the type of person they should avoid?

Hint: should be you're as in you are

Re:its not (0, Offtopic)

strictfoo (805322) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255241)

oops, I'm an idiot

The second "your" is incorrect, not the first one.

Oh well. Guess that's why I meant to post as AC originally.

Re:its not (1)

booyah (28487) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255309)

Thanks, I never claimed to be literate in the english language... spelling and grammer where never my strong points. It has since been fixed.

Re:its not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10256040)

That's grammar! you illiterate clod :)

Re:its not (1)

daiakuma (812576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255247)

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/PEG/PEG-VZ90/ feat2.html I wouldn't mind using it like that. Anyone care to sponsor me for a trip to Japan?

Re:its not (1)

daiakuma (812576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255274)

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/PEG/PEG-VZ90/ feat2.html [www.sony.jp]

Sorry, should have made a proper link. (Pictures of the new Clie that uses this display)

Re:its not (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255928)

Sorry, should have made a proper link.

Real Slashdotters use Firefox with the plain text URL extension.

Re:its not (1)

ktulu1115 (567549) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255284)

Not quite the 19" display I'd like for my computer at home, but definitely a step in the right direction.
19"? Nah... A 21" [dell.com] would be much nicer (Dell 2001FP).

OLED is described in article (4, Funny)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255172)

So now we have Organic LED's and Organic speakers.... perhaps one day we will have an organic computer! :-)

As OLED works with self-luminous organic materials, it has outstanding response time, without producing any afterimage even when displaying moving images (movies). Also with wide viewing angle and contrast ratio as high as 1000:1, high quality images can be realized on mobile products which are used in various occasions.

As the saying goes, mother nature knows best. With all our technical skills, nature can produce a better light emitting substance than we can!

This is super sexy, I cannot wait until I have a paper thin wall sized display...

Good work sony.

Re:OLED is described in article (4, Funny)

Epistax (544591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255215)

As the saying goes, mother nature knows best.

Not to set up a patriarchy but perhaps father time knows better. Nature has a few billion years of work we need to catch up on.

Re:OLED is described in article (4, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255220)

Pah!

I have been using a grid of Glow-worms for years.

Green screen only so far, but the chocolate food dispensor works as expected. The biggest problem I have is the noise they make when trying to shove replacement ones into place.

I'm sure the RSPCA would be on at me for something, but its in the name of science!

Re:OLED is described in article (2, Funny)

hb253 (764272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255267)

Is that better than my Lite-Brite panel?

Re:OLED is described in article (2, Funny)

linuxcoder (568828) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255235)

I don't know about you, but I keep my organic computer between my ears.

Re:OLED is described in article (2, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255371)

So now we have Organic LED's and Organic speakers.... perhaps one day we will have an organic computer! :-)

Everyone has at least one of those (sometimes two in the banjo-playing towns). Unfortunately, there seem to be some serious quality control issues in the production process.

That's probably because so few engineers ever manage to get involved in it.

Re:OLED is described in article (2, Informative)

flend (9133) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255527)

`Mother nature knows best' :) Unfortunately the word `organic' here just means based on carbon chemistry. The organic materials used in OLED and PLEDs (polymer LEDs) do not occur in nature and have to be synthesised by chemists (eg. Alq3, PPVs etc.)

Re:OLED is described in article (1)

BlueTooth (102363) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255538)

As OLED works with self-luminous organic materials, it has outstanding response time

This quote is worded as if it were obvious. Am I missing something? What makes an organic material inherently more responsive?

Re:OLED is described in article (1)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256069)

What makes an organic material inherently more responsive?
Hmm, must be married.

Re:OLED is described in article (4, Informative)

phobos13013 (813040) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255722)

perhaps one day we will have an organic computer!

hate to burst your bubble but just because they are made out of 'organic' materials doesnt mean they are natural. All it means is that instead of oil based acrylics, and metal laden materials, they are using carbon-based materials that have fast-transfer dendric properties. These materials are about as natural as DDT. They are still really cool devices tho and have a great contribution to technology, just dont go around thinking its like an extenstion of the human body or about to go reproducing on its own now...

Chin up, little fellas (5, Funny)

gregduffy (766013) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255177)

Just don't use any anti-bacterial soap before handling it! ::swish::

2nd september, Opto OLED's (4, Interesting)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255200)

Opto Tech introduces 1.5-inch OLED panel for handsets [digitimes.com]

"The company said that the panel has the highest resolution among all current OLED panels"

Perhaps OLEDs will lead to 300dpi displays, or at least 160dpi. ~72 just don't cut it.

Re:2nd september, Opto OLED's (1)

jilbert (520628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255299)

480x320 isn't that high. They call it "HVGA" resolution. I thought the "HVGA" (half-sized VGA) was 640x240? Same number of pixels I guess.

These displays should be superb for mobile DVD players once they are widescreen and DVD resolution.

OLED has the potential to be better than CRT - perhaps the first Hi-Fi video display?

Re:2nd september, Opto OLED's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255311)

Personally, I'm still waiting for PLED panels [cdtltd.co.uk] .

Put them together! (1)

artlu (265391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255229)

You can get a whole bunch and put them together as was talked about in yesterday's article. [slashdot.org]

gShares.net [gshares.net]

OLED power consumption (4, Interesting)

grunt107 (739510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255234)

The story did not say anything on power consumption for the Sony OLEDs. I would hope, since PDA/Cell battery life is fairly low right now, that this OLED consumes far less than its backlit counterpart.

Otherwise, the sharper contrast/light quality is nice, but no thank you.

Power consumption.... (5, Informative)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255269)

should be quite a bit lower than lcds. The diods are far less efficient than the lcd backlights, BUT:
-You dont need polarizers and color filters (those absorb >2/3 of the light in a lcd)
-Dark pixels are just not powered/lower powered (if the typical brightness level is low, this is another factor of 2-4).
So the organic leds only need 10% of the effience of normal ones to break even, which should be very archiveable.

Re:Power consumption.... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255759)

Funny, with OLED your battery life will depend on the color of your wallpaper - I guess my new favorite color is black :)

Re:Power consumption.... (1)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256108)

Yeah, and those bright Energy Star logos that appear from some video cards would consume more power than anything else you might display!

How about an Energy Star logo screen saver?

Re:OLED power consumption (2, Interesting)

dabug911 (714069) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255317)

It was my understanding originally that OLED's where being promoted/created to help fight the power consumption. OLED was promoted to be used to replace light bulbs eventually becuase of the lower power consumption as well I believe. Even some Cells are starting to experiment with them.

Re:OLED power consumption (1)

MathFox (686808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255336)

Expect OLED's to be very efficient. A few Watts of OLED should be enough to light your living room. They will use less power than the backlight of an LCD screen, An LCD without backlight will be more efficient though.

Re:OLED power consumption (3, Interesting)

daiakuma (812576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255385)

I read a while ago about how OLEDs in the future could be part of an energy revolution, causing electricty consumption for lighting to be reduced to a tenth of present levels. The article I read suggested that the day was about ten years away. Maybe it is a lot closer than that, now.

Re:OLED power consumption (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255966)

It's probably not any closer. I say this for two reasons. First, the lifespan of OLED is currently abysmal. Second, there are already tons of LED lighting solutions, and people are for the most part not using them because they are much more expensive than bulbs. Apparently cutting power consumption is not enough.

It's about time (5, Interesting)

Dolphy (569457) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255251)

One step closer to everything we've been promised the past few years. You want a roll-up screen to go with your fold-up keyboard? This is the technology line that will make it happen. Window curtains that can change color, table-tops that are skinnable...think of it.

Now if we can only get the price down enough to make such trivial applications a reality.

Re:It's about time (1)

CheechBG (247105) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255624)

mmmmmmm, skinnable tabletops. Can go from ping-pong to beer-pong to poker in under a second :)

Re:It's about time (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255728)

I am not so sure I want light emitting window curtains. Same for table tops really. eInk is probably a better solution for that (eInk does does not emit light, it works just like regular ink).

Aliens? (0)

philbowman (707419) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255260)

Sony Beings?

Human Side? (2, Insightful)

webword (82711) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255261)

I like to read about this geek stuff. Understanding the technology is important to me. However, I am most curious about how the technology is applied. What software applications will be better for people now? How does this impact the elderly users? How will the usability be improved overall? The technology is great, but I like to understand the business benefits and the user benefits.

Re:Human Side? (2, Informative)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255325)

How does this impact the elderly users?

OLEDs can be made much bigger and lighter than CRTs without sacrificing performance. This means the elderly can run Firefox with 72 point fonts so they can read them and still fit a page width on the screen.

Re:Human Side? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255798)

"OLEDs can be made much bigger and lighter than CRTs"

Maybe in far distant future, but currently OLED is limited to a very small devices. AFAIK largest demonstrated standalone OLED panels are only ~20" (bigger panels have been also demonstrated, but they consist of multiple smaller panels stiched together).

It will take at least 2-3 years before OLEDs are good enough for 17-20" monitors and few years more until they are good enough for 30-40" TVs. It will propably take almost a decade before we have affordable "bigger than CRTs" 50"+ OLED panels.

Re:Human Side? (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255739)

How does this impact the elderly users

It's proposed that OLED displays would eventually be bendable. Therefore, make a facemask of the material and they can display a picture of what they USED to look like while trying to perform bedtime activities.

Then again, imagine the halloween costumes...

Clie? (3, Interesting)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255278)

I wonder if this is going to change their policy in regards to selling Clie's in the US? [slashdot.org]

Re:Clie? (2, Informative)

daiakuma (812576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255360)

The new Clie that they've just introduced is more of an entertainment device than a traditional PDA. Since the Clie brand is well-known and respected, it would make very good sense for them to start selling entertainment devices under the Clie brand in the US, I guess.

Re:Clie? (1)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255561)

That makes perfect sense. Sony's always geared their devices toward media and entertainment. They touted their Clie line's mp3 capabilities and built-in camera before most other PalmOS based handhelds had the ability. Looking at their Japanese PEG-VZ90 site [www.sony.jp] it appears their device is still running PalmOS. I see the spin now "we're not selling PDAs, they're so 2001. We're selling 'personal entertainment devices'."

Although, I guess before getting my hopes up I should wait for them to announce a US release.

lifetime of display? (5, Informative)

mshultz (632780) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255287)

Has any progress been made regarding the life of these displays? Last I heard, the longest these things would last was about a year or two before going too dim to be useful.

Unless Sony is figuring that the early adopters will be people who tend to buy new PDA's quite frequently anyway, and will therefore be willing to get rid of this one once the next generation comes out the following year...

Re:failure rate is still high (5, Informative)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255556)

NO real progress has been made in that area. The color failure rate is still pretty high. the typical failure is a pixel getting 'stuck' in the on or off position. Being that the display is more expensive to make than other available technologies, they probably won't be replaceable and will make the units, escentially, throw aways or disposables.

See my other comment [slashdot.org] for details and supporting links.

Re:lifetime of display? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255779)

Is that a year of shelf-life or a year of constant use? No way a cellphone or PDA ever gets 24*365 hours of on-time.

Re:lifetime of display? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255865)

Is that a year of shelf-life or a year of constant use? No way a cellphone or PDA ever gets 24*365 hours of on-time.

I don't know about PDAs (I don't really use one), but my cell phone has to be turned on to ring. So I keep it on most of the time, even though I don't talk on it daily. When the phone is on the screen is on, so the screen will be on for at least 3/4ths of a year.

I can see OLED lifetime being an issue in some applications.

Re:lifetime of display? (2, Informative)

mshultz (632780) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255899)

What I've read (but I am a violinist, not an engineer...) is that typical OLED displays have a life of about 5-10,000 hours. These folks [onestopdisplays.net] apparently market a 20,000-hour OLED panel, but I believe that's for the monochrome version. That measurement is the amount of time until the panel display reaches half-brightness, I believe.

Even a 10,000-hour display would give you a decent useful lifetime, but according to this page [kodak.com] , little things like exposure to air, humidity, and temperature extremes can reduce the display's lifetime.

PSP bound? (3, Interesting)

PorscheDriver (698772) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255293)

Will these end up in Sony's PSP? Would be nice...

Re:PSP bound? (2, Insightful)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255587)

Not this one specifically. It's a 3.8" display and the PSP specs seem to claim a 4.3" one. Besides, the PSP is going to be a more budget oriented device than their Clies so using the latest greatest screen technology would probably be cost-prohibitive.

Re:PSP bound? (1)

JDevers (83155) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255780)

At the same time though, the only profit in the Clie is actually the Clie itself (well, not counting indirect stuff like potential music sales). The PSP doesn't even have to turn a profit on the hardware if the software sales are good enough, given past console history they could even loose a bit of money on each and still turn a profit in that segment of their business.

Re:PSP bound? (1)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256135)

It's true that all of the console makers sell systems at a loss but they generally try to mitigate that loss by using cheaper componets, not by selling the best hardware at a tremendous loss. That's one of the reasons PC games will probably never die completely. PC gamers are in the 'upgrade often' mindset and while a console released today will look as good as a pretty decent PC, in 2 years the PC will kick it's ass and the next console will be another 2 years out.

Right now, Sony should be feeling fairly confident about their new baby. Nintendo is breaking the formula with their dual-screen-and-one of them's touch crap while still not pumping a lot of horsepower into their system. They'll still sell primarily to the usual under-aged Gameboy crowd. The only real competition Sony has in the adult portable gamer market is the Tapwave Zodiac which is really in a class by itself (and has an unimpressive lineup). There's no need for Sony to hemmorage massive cash to put in a slightly better componets.

Pecunia non OLED... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255319)

This is going to make Sony a bundle...

In other news... (2, Informative)

tcdk (173945) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255327)

...Sony releases the Clie VZ90 [palminfocenter.com] . To bad it's for Japan only, as Sony has decided to pull out of USA and Europe when comes to PDAs [palminfocenter.com] .

No more Clie's (1)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255362)

I was going to bring this point up myself. What difference does it make what they put in them, if you can't buy them? They are not for sale in the US. Sony says they will address sales in the US again next year, but I don't see any reason why they would change their stance. Don't be counting on bein able to pick one of these babies up on US soil, ever.

Re:No more Clie's (1)

daiakuma (812576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255430)

But the VZ90 represents a change of direction for Clie. It is not like a Palm. It's mainly an entertainment device. If Sony come back into the market with Clie-branded entertainment devices, they'll not be competing directly with Palm, so the situation will be different from the way it was before they withdrew.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255496)

How exactly is that "other news" if it is referenced in Slashdot's article summary?

Re:In other news... (3, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255711)

One of the toughest things I've learned about business over the years is the importance of identifying and concentrating on your best customers for a product.

Your best customers aren't necessarily the ones with the most money, or even the ones with the greatest need. They're the ones who are willing to pay the most money for things you're good at. Looked at this way, in Japan, there are tons of people who will pay top dollar for sophisticated, cutting edge technology in a small package. In the US, being a gadget freak makes you a -- freak. Look at the phones people use! Look at the networks! The height of technological sophistication among well heeled US executives is a Blackberry, nothing against RIM or anything, it's a nice device, but nothing very astounding.

So, the size of the early adopter market in the US is actually much smaller. Sony can have a pretty sure hit in Japan among the early adopters without the extra investment in marketing and production that seriously targetting the pragmatist segment would require. Once the kinks are worked out and the production costs are trimmed, then they can consider introducing something for the pragmatists at a lower cost, or more likely licensing their technology to somebody geared up for that particular headache.

I really wish I'd learned that lesson in software marketing.

Re:In other news... (1)

corngrower (738661) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255713)

Well maybe they intend to sell the displays as components for other companies to integrate into their products. You don't think that Dell or Palm actually make the display portion of their devices do you? They buy them from other companies like Sharp, Samsung, and AU optronics.

Glofish glow-in-the-dark sexual attack problem? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255338)

Dunno. My Glofish [glofish.com] might like it. I only got females. And that's like that dinosaur island movie. These females must be mighty desperate and find these cells in my game pad to be male-looking. Don't want to start them mutating or something.

Didn't Kodak introduce an OLED display ? (2, Interesting)

gwizah (236406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255343)

For one of their Cameras awhile back? Whatever happened to that? And why wasn't it ever realeased in the US?

I'm glad to see Sony utilizing this technology. Now I just have to wait for the eventual OLED gameboy :)

Re:Didn't Kodak introduce an OLED display ? (2, Informative)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255386)

Yes they did play a big part in the development of OLED technology.
Kodak OLED Research [kodak.com]

Took Longer Then I expected (2, Interesting)

LabRat007 (765435) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255364)


Seems I've been hearing about this technology for years. Does anyone know what Technical road blocks may have been keeping it from entering full blown industrial production for so long? Or maybe this is just the normal gestation period of a new technology?

Re:Took Longer Then I expected (3, Informative)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255493)

Production cost is one factor. It is still more expensive to manufacture these things. There are articles out there that claim otherwise, but they are simply wrong. Here is an Independent analysis [frost.com] of manufacturer who happens to make OLEDS. It is a good synopsis of what the real problem is there.

The other problem is that the operation life span of an OLED display is much shorter than other comparable display technologies. The link here [www2.vdma.de] is a really good PDF on OLED, what it really is and what advantagious and it's problems. (apologize of my spelling errors, I was too lazy to go back and correct them.)

Re:Took Longer Then I expected (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255790)

The Almighty Yen

They're doing extensive research to determine how complicated they can make the manufactuing process look like. This way, they can charge the absolute maximum without anybody realizing they're being pumped out at a unit cost lower than a sweatshop t-shirt.

Lifetime, Lifetime, Lifetime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255860)

The main technical problems with pLED (polymer Light Emitting Devices) and OLEDs is that they tend to degrade fairly quickly. The last I heard the best lifetime people have been able to get is approximately 10,000 hours. (lifetime defined as how long it takes before the voltage needed to maintain a steady luminance is double the initial voltage) That being said, progress on the lifetimes (and brightness too) is being made in terms of better materials, better construction, and better design.

The best part? There are literally hundreds of potential uses for these things in everything from panel lighting, to stickers that are actually bendable displays, to super-cheap mass-producable solar panels. Definately going to turn into some mighty cool tech... /corey

Response time (2, Interesting)

Lank (19922) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255396)

They keep saying they have excellent respone time, but how fast is it? To quote TFA: "As OLED works with self-luminous organic materials, it has outstanding response time, without producing any afterimage even when displaying moving images (movies)." I think LCD screens make the same claims, although they actually can and do leave afterimages a lot of the time, making fast moving games, like first person shooters, very difficult to enjoy.

Re:Response time (2, Informative)

close_wait (697035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255541)

The data sheet included in the press release gives 16msec for LCD, 0.01msec for OLED. That's 1600 x more responsive by my calculation.

Re:Response time (1)

Lank (19922) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255579)

Well no doubt it's faster - otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it. What I want to see is comparisons to CRTs. That information is not there, but maybe because it hasn't reached large enough sizes to really replace a CRT yet.

Uh... let's see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255952)

0.01msec = 0.01 * 10^(-3)s = 10^(-5)s... which is to say that you could update a pixel 10^5 = 100.000 per second. Seeing as regular FPSs need to run at around 75 fps I'd say that's plenty fast enough.

Re:Response time (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256033)

OLED should be much more responsive than CRTs. CRTs work by the luminescence of phosphors on the screen, excited by electrons being fired from the guns in the back of the monitor - you know, directly at your face. Anyway the phosphors have some persistence; they have to, because the monitor only paints the screen so many times per second. You may have noticed that even the newest monitors will do 60Hz refresh rates. That means that phosphors continue to glow for at least 1/60 of a second, or 1ms. In other words, 16 times more responsive than an LCD panel, but still 100 times less responsive than OLED.

The question then becomes how rapidly the OLED matrix is scanned. Because of the very nature of electronics, OLED displays will still be updated left to right, top to bottom, because it's simply the easiest way. You can't connect the controller to every pixel all the time, because you'd end up with a chip with 1,310,720 leads for just a 1280x1024 display. Consequently we scan rows and deal with individual elements, or a few elements, but not the whole panel at once.

Re:Response time (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255623)

Nope. LCD response time sucks.

Try playing any good FPS (first person shooter) on a flat panel then switch to a CRT.

Also, stay with the old RGB and avoid using Digital DVI as it is limited to 60hz refresh, apparently by the DVI 1.0 Spec.

Re:Response time (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255866)

OK. I've generally kept quiet with my questions on FPS in games. If I can enjoy a fast action movie running at about 30FPS on a TV, why do we need to see 100FPS+ on a computer monitor for fast action games?

If the computer is able to maintain a consistent 30-60 FPS, why's that so bad? Humans generally aren't able to react and respond in 1/30 of a second actions to compensate for any 'hidden' actions that occur between frames. Or maybe someone wouldn't mind giving me an LCD computer monitor, just to see for myself.

That's great, but... (1)

ephemeraleuphoria (640619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255407)

Keep in mind this will only ever apply to the new Japenese models since American Clie is dead [slashdot.org] .

Great technology (1)

77Punker (673758) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255423)

Super top emission? Sounds great. Maybe NVidia will add super-duper-mega-fast graphics technology to their next video cards.

Re:Great technology (2, Funny)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255647)

Dude! Don't you know that "Super Top Emission" is actually an FCC approved rating for display technology. Here's the rating summary directly from FCC Document BU11-SH17:

25 cd/m2 -- Cheap Bastard Emission
50 cd/m2 -- 'Not too bad' Emission
75 cd/m2 -- Very Good Emission
100 cd/m2 -- Mega Emission
150 cd/m2 -- Super Top Emission
175 cd/m2 -- Ulta Super-dee-dooper Emission
200 cd/m2 -- Mega Ulta Super-dee-dooper Emission
300 cd/m2 -- Nocturnal Emission

No really...

150 cd/m2 is pretty dim (4, Insightful)

GuyFawkes (729054) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255456)


Must be 5 years ago now for a project I was working on way back then, I got hold of a 12.1 inch 800 x 600 native Sharp industrial grade TFT (for those of you not in the know indusrial grade are the pick of the yield) which the had the standard sharp backlight, which was about 300 cd/m2 even way back then, removed and replaced with one from an american company called Landmark Technology which meant it was 1500 candela and true daylight readable even in direct sunlight... the screen was driven by an expensive (I forget the make for the moment) graphics engine which took the input RGB and converted it to the TFT native electronics signal format.

The image quality was absolutely astonishing, even blew away things like my current 21 inch sony 520, white WAS absolutely white, the most minute details such as the - - - - - - effects you get around selected dialogue buttons in windows were absolutely pin sharp, and when showing images such as some of the nature type pictures included in xp as default desktop backgrounds the effect can only be described as feeling like you were looking at a high quality photographic transparency backlit by a professional grade light-box.

The horizontal and vertical viewing angles were also pretty dramatic, with a very wide range over which brightness and contrast didn't appear to vary, response was also more than enough for multimedia playback.

So that was 5 years ago.

I haven't seen anything since that was actually better quality, except today I could get an 18 inch 1600 x 1200 panel, so these "new" ideas are cool and all, but I think their unique selling points must be anything other than true image quality, it must be something like very low power consumption, very much more robust, or perhaps extended operational temperature range.

Until one of those uses applies to me I'm quite happy to use the tft built into my dell laptop, but for desktop work it has to be CRT, for everything else such as the digital camera then the tft screens in built are no more use than thumbnail browaing in MHO.

Re:150 cd/m2 is pretty dim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255596)

... showing images such as some of the nature type pictures included in xp ...
I don't believe you!

Go on, admit you were looking at pr0n. ;-}

Re:150 cd/m2 is pretty dim (2, Interesting)

dabadab (126782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255834)

"when showing images such as some of the nature type pictures included in xp as default desktop backgrounds

(...)
So that was 5 years ago.
"

I hate to point out that five years ago it was 1999 and we did not have Windows 2000 - let alone XP.
Also, the good quality of a high-end, probably insanely expensive TFT does not mean much about the stuff we have to use in our lives - for example, the TFT in my Fujitsu-Siemens Lifebook has very sucky viewing angles.

PSP Screen also? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10255519)

What do you think - will the screen be OLED or will that still be too expensive? Can't wait for the PSP - it looks pretty damn cool.

Working temperatures? (4, Interesting)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10255570)

I'd like to know at what temperatures those thing still work... They'd come in handy as GPS screens in cars. But cars usually get very cold/hot during the seasons.

Hey, if they came in the right size I'd put them in my KARR (yes the one from Knight Rider) once it's finished.

Just a thought (2, Funny)

Tibe (444675) | more than 9 years ago | (#10256057)

As I sit here infront of my four current LCD's... 'crap'
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...