Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

OLED TVs Arriving Within the Next Three Years

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the cooler-screens-but-not-shows dept.

Displays 145

Anonymous Howard writes "Toshiba and Matsushita, in a joint venture, are going to be bringing OLED TV panels to market within 3 years! Granted, the size of the panel is only 20.8 inches, but that is a huge step up from the small OLED screens used in cell phones and other portable devices. It will have a resolution of 1,280 by 768 pixels (WXGA) and handles 16.7 million colors. No specifications on contrast, brightness, or refresh rates have been released, but such specs wouldn't necessarily be indicative of OLED displays to be released in three years' time."

cancel ×

145 comments

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

I'll believe it when I see it (1)

zehnra (1076641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691413)

They've been saying "Coming soon!" for some time now.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (1, Troll)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691671)

And with a 720p maximum resolution, it's not going to sell in the HDTV market.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (3, Interesting)

jcrash (516507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691891)

At 20 inches, it doesn't need to be 1080p. You couldn't tell the difference if it was, so it really doesn't matter.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (1)

sarahbau (692647) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692535)

At 20 inches, it doesn't need to be 1080p. You couldn't tell the difference if it was, so it really doesn't matter.
But at 1280x768, the resolution is too low for it to sell as a desktop monitor. I realize they are different markets, but they do use the same technologies. In response to the great grandparent, I too have been hearing "coming soon" forever. I remember reading about it in Discover Magazine in 1999, promising "roll up" displays within a few years.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (2, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692585)

Are you nuts?

Best Buy sells 720p plasma TVs in 42" and 50" by the truckload. They sell 720p direct-view CRTs and LCDs in all sizes as fast as they can get them.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (1)

aonaran (15651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693873)

...but will they still in 3 years when ALL LCD TVs are 1080P???

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692855)

No kidding, this will happen some time just after everyone has ISDN in their homes, commutes to work in their hovercars, and peace is at hand in the Middle East and the Balkans.

Twofo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18691431)

http://goatse.cz/ [goat.cx] [twofo.co.uk] [goatse.ch]

Better color gamut (1)

elwinc (663074) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691433)

Great! OLED has a better color gamut than LCD or plasma

Re:Better color gamut (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691471)

Do you happen to know if these are the hybrid backlit/OLED displays, or are these purely OLED? Originally the promise of OLED was that the fact that the display produced its own light, and did not require a backlight was going to mean substantially higher contrast, lower power consumption and longer life. However, at some point they discovered that it was not currently practical, as OLEDs weren't capable of sufficient luminosity, and thus hybrid displays with backlights took over.

Has that changed?

Re:Better color gamut (4, Informative)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691573)

In the article from Toshiba/Matsushita that TFA references [tmdisplay.com] , I found the following blurb that answers my question:

In addition, the OLED panel features an ultra-wide viewing angle, a thinner profile due to the eliminated backlighting system and other peripheral elements, and energy conservation offering eco-friendly advantages.


Woohoo! I can't wait to buy one (though I'll likely wait for 32+" versions.

Re:Better color gamut (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693691)

I want monitor paint, that I can just splash on the wall and that'll be my monitor. That would be cool.

Re:Better color gamut (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693857)

"Woohoo! I can't wait to buy one (though I'll likely wait for 32+" versions."

Ever since I got my projector, I'm spoiled. I can't seem to deal with anything less than 85" - 100"+ in picture sized.

Re:Better color gamut (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18691605)

As I understand it, the "hybrids" are LCDs with white LED backlights. There are a (very) few laptops with these already, and Engadget had a story (today?) about Samsung producing some desktop-sizes panels using this technology very soon.

There have been prototypes of large OLED displays for a long time. There must be some sort of cost or production-related reason why they aren't being commercialised yet. One rumour is that they have a limited life.

I can't wait. I'm currently using an LCD as a digital picture frame. The improved viewing angle, darker black level and better colour gamut would make OLEDs far superior in this application.

Re:Better color gamut (2, Insightful)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693849)

The problem with bringing any new display technology to the market is that you have to hit the ground running. Let's say the current production of 20" LCD panels is 10 million a year (which seems reasonable to me and is possibly more). Therefore if you are bringing a 20" OLED to the market you need to be able to make at least 1 million a year. That is a very high entry barrier.

There are issues with the blue, however these have now been solved with 20,000 hours lifetime (five years at 10 hours a day). Other issues revolve around a set of patents held by Eastman Kodak that need licensing, manufactures might well be holding off till they expire. Finally LCD displays have got where they are today over 30 years of incremental improvements in manufacturing techniques, a luxury not afforded to new display technologies.

Re:Better color gamut (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691549)

I was told by a Professor in my department that OLED's had trouble with the blue colour. Not blue enough according to him.

Anyway, nothing that can't be solved in three years time.

Root poster must be joking. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18691799)

OLED displays degrade very rapidly, from day 1 on... the blue elements have a life-time of about 5000 hours, the red and green about 60000 hours. You can expec to get about 40000 out of a typical display, which of course will look like crap due to loss in color fidelity.

I've very sceptical of this claim of OLED TVs in 3 years. Remember ? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Better color gamut (1)

atcj0611 (1087187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692937)

The problem I read with the blue was that the material that was being used had a serious durability issue. It was rotting much faster than the green and red were (being organic and all) so i would imaging that they either found a new material or changed something in the manufacturing process. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=23 515 [theinquirer.net]

Better than LaserTV? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692371)

I personally think tat we'll see commercial Laser TV [wikipedia.org] devices before we see OLED in a big way... That has the potential for even a wider gamut. We should know before too long as they keep saying sometime 2007...

And, with Laser TV you can use it in a front or rear projector.

Re:Better than LaserTV? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692885)

And, with Laser TV you can use it in a front or rear projector.

All current laser TV prototypes have been rear-projection types. They use an array of mirrors so they can hit various parts of the screen without the TV having to be enormously slick.

OLED is going to give us a fantastic picture without projection. I agree that Laser is the future of front projection. But I think that OLED will kill rear projection more or less entirely.

I want OLAD not OLED! (0, Troll)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691469)

I wish they would spend time creating Organic Light Absorbing Diodes that will convert light into electricity. When they got that into solar panels then we can tell the pesky little middle eastern nation to go drink their oil.

Re:I want OLAD not OLED! (2, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691537)

"Organic Light Absorbing Diodes that will convert light into electricity"

1. Illuminate a plant
2. Put plant in biomass-powered generator
3. ...
4. Profit?

Re:I want OLAD not OLED! (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691833)

Awesome! I've got lots of grow-lights. I'll get them creating bio-mass as soon as I'm done posting this. Hmm, maybe I should consider using white LEDs though to make it more efficient. I'll do that with the profits from my biomass. It is always good to reinvest, ya know?

-matthew

Re:I want OLAD not OLED! (1)

manitoulinnerd (750941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693361)

These are on their way. As of yet they aren't very efficient but they an analogous to solar cells and LED. I know of at least one grad student who is working on them.

Re:I want OLAD not OLED! (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691591)

Have you got some reason to think that such a thing would be more efficient than existing solar cells? Current organic semiconductor solar cells have pretty lousy efficiency (4-5%). Or are you thinking they would be so cheap to manufacture that it would more than compensate for the low efficiency?

Either way, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:I want OLAD not OLED! (1)

tao_of_biology (666898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691651)

Re:I want OLAD not OLED! (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692655)

Hats off. You got it. Next time I will try to be even more obscure and indirect, like the code I write. ;-)

New flat screen war? (1)

Bazman (4849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691495)

OLED vs SED? Toshiba/Matsushita vs Canon (Canon were working with Toshiba on this but had to buy them out...).

Me, I'm waiting for whatever comes after... :)

Re:New flat screen war? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691757)

SED is kind of exciting because of the wide viewing angle, but otherwise OLED has to be the winner. Flexibility and lower power consumption do it for me.

Re:New flat screen war? (1)

GoatMonkey2112 (875417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692757)

If they can ever put legal issues behind them, SED should be first to market by maybe a couple of years, at least at larger sizes anyway. In that time the cost of manufacturing SEDs could be greatly reduced and it could take even longer for OLED to gain popularity. However, eventually OLED should win, since it is just better technology, but it will take a good number of years for it to happen.

Re:New flat screen war? (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693559)

SED is kind of exciting because of the wide viewing angle, but otherwise OLED has to be the winner.

What indications are there that SED has a better viewing angle than OLED? My understanding was that OLED had about as ideal of a viewing angle as you can get, since the light is coming directly from the surface of the screen... But there may be some factors I'm not aware of. I just figured that SED and OLED would be the same or close to the same for that criterion.

I did see an OLED prototype screen once at CES 2003 (15" Sanyo, I believe). It was absolutely awesome, and incredibly thin. I would hope that lifetime problems can be resolved, because it promises to be an inexpensive technology... With the inkjet-style manufacturing, maybe the actual OLED part of the TV/display could be a cheap replacement sheet you could buy when the color starts to degrade.

Re:New flat screen war? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693791)

What indications are there that SED has a better viewing angle than OLED? My understanding was that OLED had about as ideal of a viewing angle as you can get, since the light is coming directly from the surface of the screen... But there may be some factors I'm not aware of. I just figured that SED and OLED would be the same or close to the same for that criterion.

Using a phosphor layer means that you automatically get light radiated in all directions from the phosphors. LEDs will tend to be brightest in the direction which places the reflector (which in a normal LED is usually just the metal portion of the LED) behind the light in respect to your eyes.

I doubt it's much of an issue, but I have read that SED should be superior in this regard.

I plan to buy whichever is cheaper, but I hope that it's OLED, which I think is a better technology overall.

Re:New flat screen war? (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692327)

Me, I'm waiting for whatever comes after... :) I'm still waiting for room temperature super conductors and when I can use a tangerine as memory storage device before I get my next computer!

What about monitors? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691503)

Is there any good reasons that laptop / desktop computer monitors should stay with LCD rather than move to OLED? OLED sounds equal to or better than LCD in all measures we care about, afaik.

Re:What about monitors? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691595)

Yes. In theory OLEDs should be able to work without a backlight. It's been discovered, however, that in practically, the luminosity just isn't good enough on large displays. So these might have to have a backlight. What that means is no net power savings for laptops, and possibly even higher power consumption. For desktops, where power consumption is somewhat less of a concern, I could see this happening.

The biggest factor will be cost, though. Initially OLED displays will be higher in cost than LCDs are now, and by this time three years from now economies of scale will have forced LCDs to be available probably for the same or less than current CRTs (adjusted for inflation, of course).

Re:What about monitors? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18691853)

> In theory OLEDs should be able to work without a backlight. It's been discovered, however, that in practically,
> the luminosity just isn't good enough on large displays. So these might have to have a backlight.

An OLED with a backlight? I believe you are mistaken; that doesn't make sense, because OLED is intrisically an emissive rather than transmissivetechnology. Can you cite a reference?

I think that you are getting confused with smaller LCD displays, like those on phones, cameras and so on, which use a white LED as a backlight. In some cases, that is an OLED white LED backlight.

Re:What about monitors? (0)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691965)

(adjusted for inflation, of course)

Or not. Technology is rather startlingly deflationary. Just think about the amount of computation that $500(without adjustment) bought in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970. A decent $100 calculator today is much faster than early PCs(circa 1980), and at least 10 times cheaper in real dollars(and much cheaper again in inflated dollars). It's very nearly ridiculous, to the point that it will be amusing to start rating new machines in terms of what year of global(mechanical) computing capacity they are equivalent to(I guess a 1990 would be a bit of a doozy though). The price of 19" monitors has followed a less aggressive, but similarly downward, trend.

Re:What about monitors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692015)

What you are saying doesn't make sense. You can't just add a backlight to make an emissive display brighter. That's like trying to brighten a CRT by shining a desk lamp on it.

Re:What about monitors? (2, Interesting)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693643)

It's been discovered, however, that in practically, the luminosity just isn't good enough on large displays. So these might have to have a backlight.

As others have already posted, it doesn't make sense to just put a backlight behind an already emissive display. But also, I did see a 15" prototype OLED screen in the Sanyo booth at CES 2003, and even 4 years ago, the screen looked bright, sharp, and was super-thin, with great contrast and color. If a 15" screen was able to look good on a 15" monitor 4 years ago, I'm sure brightness isn't going to be an issue for a laptop screens.

I'm also not sure how the brightness of the individual elements would be affected by the size of the screen... it's just more pixels, and each pixel would be powered independently, so as long as each pixel can draw the same amount of current at the same voltage when there's a lot of them as when there's just a few, the brightness should be the same. AFAIK, you'd just need a bigger power supply.

Re:What about monitors? (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692373)

I've read that OLED displays have a very short life. After a quick check, Wikipedia confirms that it's a longstanding problem with the technology. Here is the relevant section from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oled#Drawbacks [wikipedia.org] :

"Drawbacks

The biggest technical problem left to overcome has been the limited lifetime of the organic materials. Particularly, blue OLEDs typically have lifetimes of around 5,000 hours when used for flat panel displays, which is lower than typical lifetimes of LCD or Plasma technology. However, recent experimentation has shown that it's possible to swap the chemical component for a phosphorescent one, if the subtle differences in energy transitions are accounted for, resulting in lifetimes of up to 20,000 hours for blue PHOLEDs. [19]

Also, the intrusion of water into displays can damage or destroy the organic materials. Therefore, improved sealing processes are important for practical manufacturing and may limit the longevity of more flexible displays.

Commercial development of the technology is also restrained by patents held by Eastman Kodak and other firms, requiring other companies to acquire a license.[citation needed] In the past, many display technologies have become widespread only once the patents had expired; aperture grille CRT is a classic example.[citation needed]"

Re:What about monitors? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693121)

Eep! 5000 hours?! That's little more than half a year if it was on 24/7, and probably less than a year of what's normal usage for me. And I'm sure it starts looking like crap before the 5000 hours is completely up. I'm not buying a monitor I need to replace every nine months or so.

Re:What about monitors? (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693701)

I think the lifetime figure indicates when the element reaches half of its original brightness. I'm sure there's some kind of a curve there, so the brightness would stay close to full brightness for most of the time, then start dropping off more significantly towards the end.

I always that that if these displays can be printed out in an inkjet-style process, the manufacturers could make replacement display sheets. When the color/brightness starts to look bad on your display, just take out the old OLED sheet and slide in the new one, so you won't have to replace the entire display with all of the electronics and everything.

Re:What about monitors? (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693897)

Except according to the very article you are getting the 5000 hour figure, they now have 20,000 hour lifespan or five years at 10 hours a day.

why not 1080p (0, Troll)

denisbergeron (197036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691589)

IN 2007, everyone want 1080p,
In 2010 everyone and his sister will need 1080p.
768 lines, is so stupid !

Re:why not 1080p (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691755)

Why 768 lines? I've seen that on shipping screens too. Why not 720 lines?

BTW, not arguing against 1080 lines here, just wondering where they get 768 number from.

Re:why not 1080p (1)

denisbergeron (197036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691813)

768 lines it's the standard, all 1080i and 720p have 768 lines.
Why, it's a greath question !

Re:why not 1080p (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691839)

Why 768 lines?
Probably related to PAL vs NTSC. For some reason, 768 and PAL pop into my head. I wonder if this is why.

Re:why not 1080p (1)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692273)

I thought ATSC (of which 720p/1080(i|p) are part) was neither PAL nor NTSC, though. I could very well be mistaken, but I remember reading something about how ATSC had the benefit of doing away with the incompatibilities between PAL and NTSC signals.

Re:why not 1080p (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692931)

> Probably related to PAL vs NTSC. For some reason, 768 and PAL pop into my head. I wonder if this is why.

Nope. NTSC has 525 scanlines, PAL has 625.

Google is your friend... why bother to post without looking it up first?

Re:why not 1080p (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692141)

2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*3=768. For 4:3 screens(thats where the 3 comes from), there is some reason to presume that it increased addressing efficiency(memory wise) to use a power of two and it just got pulled along for legacy reasons. For other ratios, who knows, but probably inertia as much as anything else(and addressing that many lines is straightforward as 3 blocks of 256, which is probably as good a reason as any).

Re:why not 1080p (1)

zero_offset (200586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692571)

Simple. 1024x768 is a commonly-used 4:3 ratio, whereas 960x720 isn't commonly used. Everybody in the world was already making 768-line LCD panels (and all the controller hardware that goes with it) for use in the earlier-generation computer monitors. Some of the higher priced projection displays (front and rear) do have "true" 720 line panels, but I don't think they're all that common.

Re:why not 1080p (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693735)

IN 2007, everyone want 1080p,
In 2010 everyone and his sister will need 1080p.
768 lines, is so stupid !

That's the resolution on the current prototype. Within 3 years, I'm sure they'll get to higher resolutions. Besides, for a 21" screen, unless it's being used as a computer monitor, 1280x768 is a perfectly acceptable resolution. So settle down.

Was hoping for superior LCDs... (5, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691639)

I was hoping for superior LCDs like those used in the OLPC. Jepsen developed an LCD display that, instead of using a crappy high-power fluorescent backlight and filters, uses a bright-white LED and a diffraction grating to deliver a display. This results in a much wider gamut, because of the wider color gamut of the white LED. It also uses 1/7 the power of a normal LCD display, because the light comes from the LED and gets redirected out the proper pixel; the brightness of the LED is adjusted as needed (an LED switches on/off effectively instantly, you can read the network signal on gigabit ethernet by sticking an LED inline). It's also cheap because existing LCD fabrication technology can be easily modified in place to do this (retooling), rather than being completely replaced with OLED fabrication technology.

Re:Was hoping for superior LCDs... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692021)

Is it possible to use LEDs to grow plants. I know there are sites that sell them but I mean do they actually work? Can every non-LED light use be replaced with LEDs?

Re:Was hoping for superior LCDs... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692177)

Yes. You can generate any frequency of light with LEDs. The problem is finding the proper doping to generate the frequency you needed; blue LEDs were either non-existent or expensive for a while, and red LEDs seem to be the easiest to make.

Re:Was hoping for superior LCDs... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692667)

Ok, that's frequency, but what about lots and lots of power?

Re:Was hoping for superior LCDs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692681)

NEC has a display based on this: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/28/a_revolutio n/ [tomshardware.com]
Unfortunately, it is roughly $6,000.

Re:Was hoping for superior LCDs... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693109)

They use adjustable color LEDs. Jepsen's design uses a prism to split the bright white LED light into a rainbow and direct the proper color to the proper pixel; this can be done with even a single LED (and you get scanlines, just like with old CRTs! Yay! The NES light gun and Super Scope should still work!). ;) The use of LEDs seems to be the only common factor here.

This may actually be a promise... (1)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691653)

a company can live up to. We do see a lot of "coming in 3 years" that slowly becomes vapoware, but in this case the technology is not only proven, but in use. Hopefully this will prove both a price and performance boost over current offerings.

Actual technology doesn't matter (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691661)

What matters is it "better" than it's predecessor?

Everyone has their own idea of what "better" is but for TV screens it's usually some combination of faster, cheaper, more/smaller pixels, bigger color gamut, wider dynamic range, wider viewing angle, etc. etc.

For a TV salesman, better means high turnover, high margins, and lots of opportunities to sell expensive add-ons. This usually means "good buzz" = better even if it's not technically better, and cheaper is usually = worse /lower margins.

Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (1)

hkmarks (1080097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691677)

I have four TVs. The biggest one, 28", is the one I watch the least. Small TVs are sufficient for watching the news in the kitchen (14") or bathroom (9"). Only movies or prime-time drama really demand something bigger (22"). Don't get me wrong, I get the appeal of big screens. But small screens definitely have a place, too. I really don't need to see the morning news life-sized. But I digress.

The lower power demands, greater flexibility, and better daylight visibility compared to LCD, raise the possibility of lightweight, portable, possibly battery-powered TVs. Obviously, good tech for laptops and portable DVD players as well.

My only question is, have they solved the lifespan issue? IIRC, OLEDs deteriorate faster than LCD, don't they?

Re:Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691827)

You have a TV in your bathroom? Why? Can you not live without it?

In some countries you can't even get electrical sockets or ordinary switches in the bathroom for safety reasons (normally 240V countries)... I hope you have LCDs and not a high voltage device (part of the electron gun in a CRT) in your wet environment.

Re:Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (1)

hkmarks (1080097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692197)

I have no idea why I have a TV in the bathroom, but it's there. It just sauntered in one day and made itself at home. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually part of some nefarious assassination plot. Oh well. If I'm going to die, at least I never miss Regis and Kelly.

Re:Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692461)

What an absurd line of questioning.

I think it's patently obvious why he has a TV in his bathroom, and equally obvious that he can, in fact, live without it. It's only a 9"er, so it's not like he's spent a bundle on it.

I have no TV in either my kitchen or my bedroom. However, I can see the large living room TV from the kitchen, and once I graduate I am damn well putting a small TV in my bathroom (carefully placed to avoid all possibility of electrocution).

Re:Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692973)

You have a TV in your bathroom? Why? Can you not live without it?

Christ, I have a TV in my car. I can live without it, but if I find myself sitting around in a parking lot for an hour, I can watch something. (I got DVD too, but I wouldn't buy one of the JVC DVD/MP3 players, they suck ass. They play DVDs okay though.)

Some of us find ourselves sitting on the toilet for a while on occasion. Personally I read when I'm in there, but I could as easily have put my little 7" LCD TV in there. I might even have done so if you could even pick up an OTA signal where I live.

Re:Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691847)

In the bathroom?

Your eyebulbs absorb only blue-filtered light.

Re:Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18693115)

TV in the bathroom?? Wow, you must have some monster dumps! Well at least when you see George W. on TV you can let him know what you think he's full of!!

Re:Good news for laptops, portable & small TVs (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693449)

Of course they've solved the longevity issue!

You buy a new one every five years.

Problem solved.

Contrast. (1)

rew (6140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691681)

Contrast is a quality measure for LCD screens. Because of the way LCDs (or DLPs) work, there is always some leakage of light, even when a pixel is completely off. If the amount of light that leaks through is only 1/2000th of what comes through when a pixel is white, that's pretty good.

For LED technology, sending about "0" current through a led, or to put "0" voltage over it, is fairly easy to achieve electronics-wise. This gives about "0" light(*), meaning a contrast ratio of a million or a billion or better is easily achieved.

(*) Sarcasm: there is going to be exactly zero light.

Re:Contrast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18693797)

No, your use of quotes was correct. As long as the pixel is above 0 Kelvin, it will be emitting radiation.

Talk about late to market (3, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691741)

OK, they will start arriving in 3 years, they don't do true HDTV when everyone else is at 1080p, and they're only 20 inch diagonal. Wow, I'm sure the marketplace will just snap them up like hotcakes - especially since they'll start off at an inflated "new technology" price point.


When you've got a $5000 20" OLED set, and your buddy's got a $3000 50" plasma 1080p set, who's going to win the pissing war, or host the cool SuperBowl party??

Re:Talk about late to market (1)

benicillin (990784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692891)

yeah i fail to see how these OLED tv's are going to compete. they are worse in every way, and will be ridiculously overpriced. what is the point in developing these sets? what are their advantages?

Consider the life of the product (1)

subl33t (739983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692957)

Plasma screens suffer from burn, LCD screens rely on backlighting which will eventually fail.

How long will an OLED display last? That may be the deciding factor for a lot of potential buyers.

Can anyone enlighten us?

Re:Talk about late to market (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693779)

Me with my £20 digital projector :-)

It's ex-lecture hall, and f***ing awesome.

3 years? Hm.. (1)

zyl0x (987342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691791)

I remember hearing somewhere that manufacturers and producers usually announce their release date projections for 3 years. The reasoning behind this, was something about 3 years being "not too long" if it is actually released, but "long enough" that if the release is a failure, in 3 years no one will really remember.

All hearsay aside, I'm really excited about the future of OLEDs, especially for their contribution to a healthier environment.

Re:3 years? Hm.. (1)

zehnra (1076641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692909)

The problem with this logic is that 3 years from now is about 10 years from one of the original announcements, making it 7 years too late.

Blue Is The Colour (2, Interesting)

Dunx (23729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691807)

Presumably then they have solved the problem of blue OLEDs burning out after a year.

Re:Blue Is The Colour (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692199)

yes they have; now up to 20,000 hours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Drawbacks [wikipedia.org]

Re:Blue Is The Colour (1)

Dunx (23729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692407)

Good. Thanks.

Re:Blue Is The Colour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692437)

Yeah great, having to replace a high-end TV once per year sounds like a magnificent move forward [for the TV industry].

Re:Blue Is The Colour (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692789)

In order to kill your OLED TV with a 20,000 hour life blue, you would have to leave it on the blue screen for 54.79 hours per day. A quick back of the napkin calculation reveals that you are in fact a dumbass.

By Matsushita... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 7 years ago | (#18691979)

they mean Panasonic.

Useless information, I know :)

It will have a resolution of 1,280 by 768 pixels (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692059)

It will have a resolution of 1,280 by 768 pixels

Oh, come on, in three years even the average consumer will have started to pick up on the importance of 1080i if not 1080p. Introducing this technology without at least a choice that includes one of these resolution options will create a perception that it's a second class technology and doom it before it even gets a start.

Laptop Screens (1)

mattcoz (856085) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692217)

If they're only going to get them to that size then their ideal market could be for laptop screens. The lower power consumption and thinner form factor is perfect for that market. Might as well throw some OLED on the keyboard as well, now that would be a sexy laptop.

OLED isn't what it's cracked up to be, yet. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18692397)

I've now owned a few OLED based devices and there's one common problem with all of them: Flicker. LED's change intensity by lowering the flicker rate of the bulb itself. One of the biggest things about this OLED based MP3/Video player I have here, while yes, the colour and contrast is beautiful, it also flickers badly. Not in framerate, but actual flicker. Moving the screen makes the flicker much more apparent. I would say it refreshes at around 20Hz.

If they can figure out how to minimise the flicker on OLED's, based on what I've seen in smaller devices, then yes, I can see it taking off... but until then, it's going to be headache inducing to watch.

Tiled Wall Panels (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692467)

Why don't they tile these smallish panels with surface mounted bezels that flare the image out a little, so the bezel face covers up the frames of the underlying tile? Then they could make high-yield runs of small tiles into any size combinations. With the extra benefit of parallel delivery to the subunits, for faster refresh, async updates (sigma-delta regions), etc.

This has been a strategy that could have saved $billions in lost yields and years for other large displays like LCD. Why isn't it the industry standard already? I want my 2x3m desktop back from the 1970s!

Looking forward to SED technology instead (1)

us7892 (655683) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692537)

OK. But, I'd really like to see SED technology hit the shelves. Seemed like quite a bit of news last quarter of 2006. But, since then, still nothing solid.

Here's an older overview of that technology,
http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/08/16/sed-technolog y-explained/ [engadgethd.com]

Re:Looking forward to SED technology instead (1)

StellarFury (1058280) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692733)

Weird. Same concept, but I'd always heard it abbreviated as FED - Field Emission Displays. Samsung and a few competitors had a bunch of stuff in the works, or at least, they did. Everything seems to have gone silent on that front.

Re:Looking forward to SED technology instead (1)

us7892 (655683) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692839)

I didn't realize all the legal issues in the way of SED. There was a story from January here, http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/ 14/0134216 [slashdot.org]

I just read that there was another ruling due the first week of March on some of this. I guess this crap is why SED technology interest has gone silent...

Summary of the last sentence: (2, Interesting)

Falkkin (97268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692621)

"We have no details, but if we did, they'd be wrong anyway!"

Competition and Cooperation (1)

droopycom (470921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692707)

Its interesting to note that Matsushita and Toshiba compete in many areas (eg: BluRay vs HD-DVD), but can still collaborate on some other products...

Whatever happend to SEDs? (1)

smcdow (114828) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692715)

You know, that technology [wikipedia.org] that was supposed to revolutionize the display and TV industry.

I'm still waiting!

Re:Whatever happend to SEDs? (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692843)

The only advantages of SED over OLED are sideways viewing angle (OLED is better than LCD, but it still mostly wants to project light in one direction) and lifetime. OLED is superior in every other way; contrast ratio, black level, power consumption, weight, flexibility (of which SED has none), cost of production once the processes are ironed out, and probably the amount of energy consumed and pollution produced in making the things.

Why WXGA? (1)

Big_Al_B (743369) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692759)

It's not a monitor, it's a TV, presumably HD, so why not do actual 720p (1280 x 720) or 1080p (1920 x 1080)?

Why do HDTV display manufacturers do this?! My Panny Plasma has no PC input, but is XGA (1024 x 768), though it's advertised as "native" 720p. *sigh*

My folks Sony LCD is WXGA too, but no PC port. Also advertised as native 720p...

Can anyone explain why they stick with monitor resolution standards instead of doing actual TV resolutions? Please educate me.

Three Years? (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18692775)

Why does this matter? Sony already has a 27" 1080p OLED prototype [engadget.com] ...

Yeah, yeah... "OMFGBBQ ITS SONY THEY WILL INSTALL ROOTKITS ON IT!!1 IT WILL TELL SONY WHEN YOU WATCH PORN!!11"

Lifespan? (1)

sabernet (751826) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693181)

I was under the impression larger, more expensive OLEDs were not yet viable due to the plastic not being impermeable enough against moisture. It causes the dots(particularly the blue ones)to 'rot' and gives the display a very short lifespan compared to CRT and even LCD(which has a comparatively short lifespan as is) technologies.

Did they get the watertightness down proper? Also, the worse with this is you probably wouldn't notice the flaw with the panel until sufficient moisture has permeated the seal So make damn sure you get an extended warranty on the sucker.

A day late and a dollar short (1)

lurking_giant (1087199) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693217)

Sony showed a 27" AMOLED TV display at the CES in January with a 1,000,000/1 contrast ratio. http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/08/sonys-1-000-000 -1-contrast-ratio-27-inch-oled-hdtv/ [engadget.com] http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/01/09/ces_2007_sony_ole d_tvs_make_lc.html/ [gizmodo.com] http://news.com.com/2300-1041-6148309.html/ [com.com] Un-substantiated rumors are that they will be on the market within 9 months...

Sony showed 27" 1080p OLED at CES (1)

guidryp (702488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693429)

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/08/sonys-1-000-0 00-1-contrast-ratio-27-inch-oled-hdtv/ [engadgethd.com]

I think samsung even showed a 40" model previously.

If they want to start small how about 24" 1920x1200 computer monitor. I can't stand the viewing angle problems with LCD and I would pay more for OLED monitor in a heartbeat.

Stop talking and deliver.

Do we have to start from square one again? (1)

Type-E (545257) | more than 7 years ago | (#18693465)

3 or 4 years ago, we started with 19" LCD TV costly $700 a set. Finally, consumer level 52" LCD finally appears now. Is OLED that appealing over LCD that they can still start from 20"?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?