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 Launches 3mm Thin XEL-1 OLED TV

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the techno-lust dept.

Sony 160

i4u writes "Sony introduces their first commercial OLED TV, the XEL-1. The stunning XEL-1 is what Sony teased on Friday on their site in Japan. The XEL-1 is an 11-inch display that is only 3 mm thin. It features a dramatic 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio and the power consumption is a low 45 W. Sony plans to start shipping the XEL-1 OLED TV on December 1 for 200,000 Yen (~$1,740). Here is Sony's OLED TV product page (in Japanese)."

cancel ×

160 comments

So... (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808587)

  1. get defects per sq/in down
  2. drop prices, increase screen sizes
  3. Profit!

Re:So... (-1, Offtopic)

Spookticus (985296) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808615)

1. For the money 2. For the show 3. To get ready 4. To go

Re:So... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808633)

second

Re:So... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808665)

Seconded! At first I read the summary and thought 'SHIT THIS SOUNDS FUCKING AMAZING' but then I went to the actual product page, and it looks like a goat pissed all over the graph paper they drew the designs on and the people in the factory didn't realise it had been urinised on and built it in the shoddy image we see before us.

Also at only 11" what use is it to anyone? They will have to film everything really zoomed in to compensate for this appalling oversight. Its typical Sony this, they design something thats good on paper, but when the final product comes out it is blighted by a terrible design flaw (like Linux). Its like when they tried to send those men up to fix the hubble telescope but they forgot to take enough petrol and they had to fly back before they had finished fixing it or they wouldn't have had enough petrol to fly home again.

Re:So... (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809613)

Also at only 11" what use is it to anyone? They will have to film everything really zoomed in to compensate for this appalling oversight. Its typical Sony this, they design something thats good on paper, but when the final product comes out it is blighted by a terrible design flaw (like Linux).
What do you mean?

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809755)

Seconded! At first I read the summary and thought 'SHIT THIS SOUNDS FUCKING AMAZING'

Also at only 11" what use is it to anyone?
Do you have a single brain cell? The summary quite clearly said the display was 11".

They will have to film everything really zoomed in to compensate for this appalling oversight. Its typical Sony this, they design something thats good on paper, but when the final product comes out it is blighted by a terrible design flaw

Since there's obviously no use for a gorgeous 11" display anywhere, you're obviously right. All those people installing displays in airplanes, cars, and, um, LAPTOPS must have overlooked something fundamental.

I haven't seen a more moronic post on Slashdot in years. That includes the goatse trolls.

Re:So... (1)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810589)

All those people installing displays in airplanes, cars, and, um, LAPTOPS must have overlooked something fundamental.
You're going to use a laptop running at 960x540? That kind of resolution and dot pitch are acceptable for TVs with full-motion video, but try running anything other than a terminal window on it and you're going to have some issues using it as a display for a computer...

Re:So... (1)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810793)

Agreed... a laptop display would need to have higher resolution. I'm sure it will before too long.

But the larger point was that an 11" display is not a "fatally flawed" product, but something that sees lots of applications. In my first post I forgot integrated displays in fridges and custom kitchens, specialty equipment, the list goes on...

Re:So... (1)

IhuntCIA (1099827) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808855)

defects are LCDs / TFTs unique feature.

Lifespan? (4, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808611)

I didn't see any mention of the lifespan of the OLED screen?

Has something changed recently, or is the TV likely to start looking funny in a year when the blue fades?

Re:Lifespan? (1)

speilberg0 (1144645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808645)

wouldn't that be called SONYvision?

Re:Lifespan? (5, Informative)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808771)

Lifespans are at acceptable consumer grade (25,000-50,000 hours+ - equivalent to a modern CRT). The big manufacturers don't put these into production lines without the consumer lifespans being hit - part of the reason that it has taken until 2007 for oleds to move beyond mp3 display screens Polymer OLED's (a different technology from what Sony are using) are a bit behind, CDT were reporting blue lifetimes of 6,000-10,000 hours (red and green are fine). That is a bit understandable though, as polymer oled technology is newer and less well developed than small molecule vacuum deposition oleds (what sony and almost everyone else are using).

Re:Lifespan? (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809167)

I wish I could moderate a discussion I posted in -- thats the answer I was looking for.

Thanks.

Why not double blues? (1, Interesting)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810183)

If they only last 1/2 as long as the reds and greens, why not put two blues by each red and green? During normal use, the backup blues wouldn't be used. When the original blues start to go bad, switch to using the backup blues. You could double the effective lifespan of the display and I don't think it would add that much cost...

Re:Lifespan? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808789)

This actually makes sense for their target market:

Males who are old enough to have that much money to spend on todays. Sony is relying on the blue drop-out to compensate for the effects of Viagra [newscientist.com] .

Re:Lifespan? (1)

IhuntCIA (1099827) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808817)

Compared to CCFL backlight in LCDs or TFTs ... give me a brake...

I guess at least 100,000 times more than backlight CCFL.

Re:Lifespan? (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809137)

Actually, its an important question, and in the best of cases OLED lifetime is far less than a CCFL. The problem I was talking about (which another poster addressed in a useful manner) is that blue dyes were an order of magnitude shorter lifespan than red and green -- to the point where in a year or two there would be noticeable changes in the color balance of the screen.

Thats why I was asking what had changed, but thanks for your attempt to appear like you have knowledge on the subject.

Re:Lifespan? (2, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809549)

It is, of course, possible to compensate by simply adjusting the colour balance to compensate. The colour balance would become corrected at the expense of overall display brightness.

I think, though, that this is an important first step; for years we've been waiting for large commercial OLEDs to become available. Now, they finally are, with this small first step. Now we'll start to see larger and cheaper screens slowly develop, until we can finally get "big screen TVs" that use OLEDs.

In addition, at 11 inches, this is pretty close to laptop territory. I expect to see 12 inch OLED laptops as soon as the price comes down a bit (say, to $500 for just the panel).

Re:Lifespan? (1)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810617)

In addition, at 11 inches, this is pretty close to laptop territory. I expect to see 12 inch OLED laptops as soon as the price comes down a bit (say, to $500 for just the panel).
Except for the fact that the display has a 960x540 resolution. Until they can lower the dot pitch and get a much higher resolution, the technology will really only be viable for TVs or other displays with full-motion video.

Re:Lifespan? (1)

IhuntCIA (1099827) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809669)

True, but CCFL have 3000 hours lifetime max. Are You saying that blue OLEDs have less than 3000 hours of lifetime?

I have no idea if blue OLED are loosing brightnes over time ( like CCFLs are ) or they need to be active. OLEDs are too bright, and all that brightness is not needed. They can be adjusted after some time, and that should fix the problem.
Another solution is to pack the OLED displays with 2 blue segments for the each pixel, switch to the second group of blue segments when the first looses half of its brightness, and switch on both blue segments when the second group looses half of its brightness. That should triple the lifetime of an OLED screen.

When first LCDs hit the market, no one knew about CCFL lifetime, and I guess 3000 hours ( usually less than that ) was good, and there was "dead pixel" problem too. Soon after that people started buying new laptop every year, like it was fashionable thing to do.

I hope that OLED screens will not enforce alike trend.

Re:Lifespan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809473)

What kind of brake? Calipers or drum? Maybe pull brakes from an old bike? Anyways, catch you later, I gotta go on break.

Re:Lifespan? (1)

unixcrab (1080985) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808829)

Probably about the same as their fantastic top-of-the-line-but-breaks-after-18-months laptops. http://leflaw.com/sony/ [leflaw.com]

thin screen obsession (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808635)

what's with the retarded obsession over ever mm of screen thickness? i can see the advantage in mobile gear, but for a desktop?

i bet buried in the fine print you'll see that color fading isn't covered under the warranty.

I'll tell you why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808823)

For the same reason civilization has spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS over the course of THE PAST FEW CENTURIES developing and refining WALL PAINT. Why didn't we just TILE the walls?

BECAUSE EVERY MILLIMETER COUNTS!

Re:thin screen obsession (1)

dollar99 (922389) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808995)

Amazingly thin screen with a footprint larger than a much cheaper LCD. Brilliant. I'm going to buy four of them and tape them together to make a $4000 22" TV. Yay!

RJ45? (3, Interesting)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808643)

Did anyone else notice the RJ45 jack on the back? What's that for? Built-in Tivo perhaps?

Re:RJ45? (3, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808803)

Most likely Sonys new "Bravia Internet Video Link". Seems like it's only for streaming for now... and perhaps Sony will realise that people wants a hdd to save to as well. But judging from past behaviour from Sony it might really take some time since customer lock-in has been pretty high on the list of priorities.

http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/television/flat_panel_displays/lcd/release/27475.html [sony.com] http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/gallery-and-hands-on-sony-bravia-internet-video-link-box-226824.php [gizmodo.com]

Re:RJ45? (2, Interesting)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809127)

Knowing Sony, it's possible the connector has 9 contacts and the lug is offset to the left by 2mm so a standard lead won't fit and you have to buy an RJ45s(TM) (For Sony(R) multimedia devices) cable, and you can only interface to kit using the TCP/IPs (For Sony(R) multimedia devices) protocol.

Re:RJ45? (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810185)

Knowing Sony, it's possible the connector has 9 contacts and the lug is offset to the left by 2mm so a standard lead won't fit and you have to buy an RJ45s(TM) (For Sony(R) multimedia devices) cable, and you can only interface to kit using the TCP/IPs (For Sony(R) multimedia devices) protocol.

Sony is gettign better on that. Well maybe just on the Ps3. The Ps3 has a plethora of standard plugs (normal rj45, 4 usb, HDMI, flash card readers for all major brands, Optical audio out etc..). The Sony 50" HDTV My parents got also has all standard plugs with a little slot for a Memstick being the only proprietary thing on it. I wonder if they've learned their lesson?

Re:RJ45? (4, Funny)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809247)

Did anyone else notice the RJ45 jack on the back? What's that for?

An Internet connection of course. How else are they going to disable it when you play non-approved content?

Re:RJ45? (0, Offtopic)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809327)

So Sony is taking people to court for that now? I thought they had the long arm of the MAFIAA to do that for them. After all, they are paid the big bucks for shit like that.

Looks like it's for LAN stuff (1)

achurch (201270) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810689)

See here [www.sony.jp] (in Japanese); it can talk to HDD recorders or PCs and play back stuff over a LAN.

Looks like the TV has an XMB, too. I guess they had to do something with all those PS3s they can't sell . . .

How do you get a rootkit (5, Funny)

Timo_UK (762705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808659)

into such a slim screen ;-)

Re:How do you get a rootkit (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809053)

With Linux,I wouldn't worry about root-kits.
Linux, however, doesn't protect you from Sony batteries. (BOOM!)

Sir Not-so-Thin (1)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808661)

"The XEL-1 is an 11-inch display that is only 3 mm thin"

...little in the middle but she got much back.

Re:Sir Not-so-Thin (4, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808717)

Actually, it has.

The display itself may be 3mm thin, but it's connected to a much bigger stand.

I really don't see the point of having a display 3mm thin when it still needs more than a thirtyfold space of that to place it somewhere.

If it could be mounted to a wall and the whole thing was still only 3mm thin, It'd be useful.

Re:Sir Not-so-Thin (2, Insightful)

Artichoke (34549) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808791)

No it wouldn't. It would be very nice though :)

Re:Sir Not-so-Thin (1)

wrmrxxx (696969) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809085)

I really don't see the point of having a display 3mm thin when it still needs more than a thirtyfold space of that to place it somewhere.
It might not look so great now, but when the screen scales up to something large and the base gets smaller due to better integration it will probably all look a lot more impressive.

Re:Sir Not-so-Thin (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809115)

I think ultimately you will see them hung on walls, installed in aircraft seats or whatever. If the screen is ultralight then they could always split out screen from the technical gubbins and put them in a box that can be hidden somewhere.

I agree that this particular device is not that useful and very expensive. But it's undeniably sexy.

Marketing (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809627)


> I really don't see the point of having a display 3mm thin when
> it still needs more than a thirtyfold space of that to place
> it somewhere.

You don't share their enthusiasm for marketing.

--Richard

Re:Sir Not-so-Thin (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810065)

The display itself may be 3mm thin, but it's connected to a much bigger stand.
I really don't see the point of having a display 3mm thin when it still needs more than a thirtyfold space of that to place it somewhere.
If it could be mounted to a wall and the whole thing was still only 3mm thin, It'd be useful.

It will be mounted to a wall soon, I'm sure. This is the very very first OLED TV on the market (well, not our market...). It's small, and it's not going to have everything that everyone wants in an OLED TV, and of course, it's expensive as hell. And since this an 11" screen, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to mount it on a wall, it's more of a countertop TV for a kitchen or something. Sure the thickness of the screen doesn't mean much if it still takes a large footprint on your counter, but maybe the display can be flipped and it can be hung upside down under a cabinet or something. The only thing the thinness is good for right now is marketing, with that "ooh, thin! (and shiny)" factor.

Very nice, but... (4, Insightful)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808669)

...what about that honking great ugly box at the bottom of it that's way bigger than 3mm deep and obviously has to sit under the TV?

Granted, it's cool that Sony have developed an OLED TV, but sorry I don't see the point of having a wafer thin screen when the base unit looks like a brick. If you could remotely stick the box somewhere else and wallmount the TV that'd be nice, but from what I can tell, you can't.

Re:Very nice, but... (1)

Woek (161635) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808725)

Exactly what I thought! Why the big box anyway? I guess you'd need some room for power components, but hey, it's only 45 Watt! Does it contain a DVD^WBD drive or something?

Re:Very nice, but... (1)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808883)

The screen is only 11 inches. It's tiny! It's tinier than the old, old 14-inch computer screens!

The box below is like half the size of an ordinary keyboard, or something like that.

How they plan to charge $1,740 for 11 inches is beyond me. I know Japanese people like things small and dainty, and need small stuff for small apartments, but aren't they exaggerating here?

Re:Very nice, but... (4, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809067)

How they plan to charge $1,740 for 11 inches is beyond me.

My understanding is that he is a very high class kind of guy.

Re:Very nice, but... (2, Interesting)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808925)

It's not that big - in fact, if you'd place it on the back of the device it wouldn't be much bigger that a regular LCD display. My guess the point of it is to emphasize the thinness of the device, even when it's due of moving the bulk of it somewhere else :) OLED displays can be very thin though, since you don't need then glass substrates and polarizers required for LCDs and such.

Re:Very nice, but... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808743)

This is obviously meant to showcase the technology, not to sell that TV. The publicity they'll get off this is more than worth the time they spent making it, AND they'll probably make the R&D back on the few who buy the 11" version.

Re:Very nice, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808915)

I lived in Japan for a while and Sony actually does this with some frequency, they'll release very high end, extremely expensive kit that isn't designed optimally yet because it's cutting edge, first generation to market. I don't think I ever saw any of these items ever make it to US shores, because they had refined the design by the time it was low enough cost to be marketable in the US.

The image on these things is simply amazing, and makes it hard to return to your LCD. People buying this are buying it for the image quality, and to have something no one else has.

Sony makes literally millions of LCD sets a year, while OLEDs are being produced on the order of a few thousand. I give props to Sony for actually making product you can buy now to play with rather than wait until they have the mass market designs perfected.

Believe me, by the time this tech makes it to US shores it won't remotely resemble the 11" on top of a clunky box.

Re:Very nice, but... (1)

djbckr (673156) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809117)

Well good grief... it's the first of its kind. The first of everything is usually not the way things will be in a few years. I remember the first CD players - they were all vertical load (I guess cause it was cool looking) but not long afterward they were all flat-tray load.

Size does matter (2, Interesting)

henrylee (1164721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808677)

The thin part is great, but they need to find a way to produce OLEDs TVs that are bigger. Even for hard core geeks like me, I don't want an 11 inch TV. And it's hard to produce a 42" OLED.

Re:Size does matter (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808721)

But 11" is already a HUGE step from the cell-phone display-size stuff that was available up to now.

Re:Size does matter (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808731)

can't they just make a ~42" TV by putting 16 of these 11" one's together. :)

Re:Size does matter (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808775)

I don't think OLEDs were ever intended to replace LCD or plasma. I think they were intended to be able to produce small screens that take less power. OLED makes perfect sense in a UMPC or a smart phone, but makes no sense at sizes people want their living room TVs at -- 35"-60", depending on the size of your living room, of course.

Re:Size does matter (2, Informative)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808871)

It actually does make a lot of sense. Current OLED's have the same limitations of size as LCD (namely everything is restricted by the largest shadow mask you can use) as they are vacuum deposited small molecules. Even with this limitation you have much superior contrast ratios (the screen itself luminescences, it is not filtering a backlight) and perfect 180x180 degree visibility (lcd have made some progress in that department but they still aren't all that good). Plasmas consume a lot of electricity and have some questionable reliability issues. With future technologies in the pipeline (namely polymer oleds and dendrimer oleds) that allow solution deposition - a process very similar to standard inkjet printing - then the size limitation disappears and an oled Tv 100" big can be manufactured if you want it - it all just takes time.

Re:Size does matter (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808961)

Somewhere along the way someone probably said the same thing about the cathode ray tube and LCD panels. Doesn't matter, if it looks better, uses less power, and runs cooler, I'll buy at least one. I don't think the average person cares much at all about 'intended use', it's more simple than that - if it can be done, people will do it.

Re:Size does matter (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810309)

People in the movie industry will love this.

They use video-support, so they can all see what the camera sees.

Being this low-power, and compact, I think they will start buying them. 11 inches might be a little too big. However, I would think that isn't a biggie.

Not to mention to contrast ratio will be a hit with the still-photographers. They shoot digital as well. They will be getting a better idea of how this will work.

Good for the women (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808729)

I think we're going to have a mini baby-boom in 9 months, considering that male geek world-wide will have painful erections from through the end of the day.

Re:Good for the women (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808929)

I don't know that geek erections have ever contributed significantly to any sort of population growth..

Re:Good for the women (2, Funny)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810103)

Women? You must be new here.

my 2$ (2, Interesting)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808739)

stuff it in a laptop, the thinness, lightness and power consumption is a sure winner there.
ditto mobile multimedia.

for domestic consumer electronics the thinness is irrelevant except for high end concept ware where people are willing to pay through the nose.

the thinness is also irrelevant if it has to be stuck on an ungly base unit (see TFA) for real jawdropping effect it should be displayed by itself with a well hidden cable in the support going to a much better hidden base unit in the wall, furniture or somewhere else.

still on the plus side the contrast and brightness sure looks good. hope it still stays that could and does not get destroyed by direct sunlight a few months after purchase.

Re: my 2$ (1)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808853)

stuff it in a laptop, the thinness, lightness and power consumption is a sure winner there.
I'm not sure about that; 45 W seems rather much. My current laptop normally draws a total of ~20 W, and that includes any power used by the rest of the system as well (not just the display).

In my mind, it's great that Sony has finally managed to get an OLED TV to the market at all. Because of that, efficiency in production and display specifications will hopefully increase faster than before, when it was mostly a product under research. Well, you can't blame me for hoping, at least. :)

Re: my 2$ (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810091)

Keep in mind that this figured includes innefficiency in the power supply, as well as power consumed by the tuner, the remote control module, the CPU that runs image filters and any other hardware not related to the screen itself. I would have to guess the screen itself uses maybe a couple of watts, though this would be pure speculation.

Re:my 2$ (1)

wes33 (698200) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809775)

my current notebook (old fujitsu p7010) has a 10.6" display and with display on medium brightness the whole computer draws about 11 watts (so says powertop anyway). This is not a battery friendly display.

Re:my 2$ (1)

HalifaxRage (640242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809781)

$2.00? I knew the US dollar was tanking, but that is quite the inflation rate!

Power consumption? (5, Informative)

hatchet (528688) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808757)

"and the power consumption is a low 45 W"
Current laptop 17" LCDs have power consumption around 15W or so.

Re:Power consumption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809025)

The entire unit consumes 45W. In this case, we can't tell how much of that is the electronics from the picture processor, and how much is from the screen itself.

Re:Power consumption? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809227)

I think an entire 17" notebook might consume 45W and does a heck of a lot more than just display an image.

Try the entire laptop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809481)

http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~mahesri/research/PACS_paper.pdf [uiuc.edu] (pg 5) 3D Mark brings a 1.3ghz pentium with a 14.1" screen just over 30W

Re:Power consumption? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809529)

"Current laptop 17" LCDs have power consumption around 15W or so."

Yeah, but not at that brightness level. I'd be more curious to compare it to a desktop LCD or a modern LCD TV.

low power ? (5, Informative)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808783)

45W from an 11inch display is not, by a long shot, low-power. If that scales linearily with screen real-estate, then that is equivalent to 600W for a 40 inch (the current top-seller size), which is aproximately 3 times the power used by an average flat-screen TV of that size sold currently.

Re:low power ? (3, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808899)

I don't know much about electronics, but not everything scales linearly. Perhaps out of that 11W there is a baseline, like a processors + red LED light (showing it's on) + infrared sensor + etc. So maybe only portion would have to increase x-times as the size increases?

"Early adoption always had its price." (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808815)

Quote from the linked article: "This is a very high price for an 11 inch TV, but it is the first OLED TV to buy. Early adoption always had its price."

I guess that sentence is trying to sell people on the idea that early adoption is acceptable, even if the price is 20 times higher than earlier equipment with the same functionality.

I will wait to buy it until it has DTT [washingtonpost.com] . (Digital Turnip Twaddling)

Re:"Early adoption always had its price." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809193)

I guess that sentence is trying to sell people on the idea that early adoption is acceptable, even if the price is 20 times higher than earlier equipment with the same functionality.

I like early adopters because they're so dumb. They help beta test products and decide winning formats before more sensible people part with their cash. They even pay excessive premiums on products to do all of this, for the chance to own a 1st generation, possibly obsolete piece of kit. They should be saluted for their stupidity.

That contrast ratio implies the blacks are good? (4, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808849)

(note: subject is actually a question ... ?)

I'd like to damn well think the blacks are good anyhow.
I'm a die hard CRT lover, I've detested the quality of the picture on LCD's for a long long time, I guess you could say I'm a videophile.

All that being said, I only just recently caved, yes I've caved, even CRT lover dan at dansdata has caved.
I picked up a Dell 2407 WFP HC screen, which apparently does colours quite well.

I purchased this because for 3 years people have been proclaiming how good LCD's are now and how widescreen is the future, how ghosting is a thing of the past, viewing angles aren't a worry, scaling with fixed pixel width is fine and blacks levels are fine on modern LCD's

Well, I'm one person who has purchased a product who has the balls to speak the truth rather than defend my money spent.
Firstly, I love widescreen, it's bloody awesome, period - great stuff.
I LOVE the extra desk space!
Fixed pixel width is certainly not bugging me in games anywhere near as much as I thought it would and I don't change resolution often in Windows anyhow (I guess I used to with my CRT)
Refresh rates and ghosting is right on the limit, it's not ideal but it's certianly nothing to fret about either.

However....

Black levels and viewing angles are ok now? - I think not people, I think not.
In bright games, the picture quality, coupled with the widescreen awesomeness of above, lovely stuff, just lovely.
I tried Oblivion though and in the caves, oh those caves, I felt the 'silverfish' effect - the blacks shimmer and refract light or something die to viewing angle nastyness.
The picture, quite literally reminded me of waking up in the morning with sleep in the corners of my eyes, I found myself rubbing my left eye constantly to try and remove said sleep.
Clearly I couldn't, it wasn't actually there, infact within about 30 minutes of playing, I simply couldn't play anymore.
I was shocked, I am not the headache type or the motion sickness type but this was quite literally making me irritated, not sick but I couldn't play due to the distraction in the corner of the display (both left and right)
The viewing angles are simply too tight for this monitor, the solution of course is to sit futher away, however why would I want to? This is why I purchased a huge 24" monitor, so that the picture is immersive and great, not something I push to the far edge of my desk, otherwise it's just too small again.

I've also tried Half Life 2 - the black scenes in that do the same thing, I honestly do not know how people play any dark games on an LCD at all, it's simply not a pleasant experience.
In some regards I miss my 22" CRT, it was a high end tube, did over 100hz at 1600x1200, some ridiculous figures at 1024 (140+ etc)

So ultimately, my question is or rather my demand is, does OLED solve these issues?
I've heard it does, but does it REALLY? LCD is (according to THOUSANDS of people on the web) apparently "as good or better" than CRT now (I beg to differ)

If I could just solve that issue with the shimmery blacks, I'd be fine but until then, for true videophiles, I just can't recommend an LCD still, hence me having a near 200lb CRT beast in the loungeroom as a television.

Help me OLED, you're my only hope.

Re:That contrast ratio implies the blacks are good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20808937)

NOTE: I just realised this could read that I'm dan from dansdata, I'm not - but we both share the same harsh attitude towards LCD's (and dopey users claiming CRT is dead, who don't know they can do more than 60hz)

- anonymouse posting, not trying to karma whore.

Re:That contrast ratio implies the blacks are good (5, Informative)

wrmrxxx (696969) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809149)

An LCD shows a black pixel by trying (not quite successfully as it turns out) to block out the light from a bright white back-light behind it. An OLED shows a black pixel by just not turning on the pixel - there's no back-light to try to hide because the pixels themselves are the light emitters. You can reasonably expect an 'off' pixel to be as black as the whole display is when it is switched off.

Re:That contrast ratio implies the blacks are good (1)

radish (98371) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810383)

(Note, not flaming, honest questions)

Is this a perception thing, like DLP artifacts? I ask because I'm also pretty picky when it comes to displays (I'm a photographer) and I honestly don't see any of the problems you mention, and haven't on any decent LCD for a long time. I'm currently looking at a 3 or 4 year old 20" Eizo and just for kicks I flipped it around so I was looking at it almost 90 degrees on. Apart from some glare it looked fine - black is black, white is white and everything else is just peachy. At home I have a pair of Dell 20" screens (not widescreen) and again, I don't notice any issues. I don't game on that machine a lot, but when I do I haven't noticed any problems with blacks (and I've played FEAR and Doom 3 on it, which are pretty dark games).

Maybe some callibration would help, or maybe some people's eyes respond differently and they pick up on different problems? I stopped using CRT 4 years ago and I have no desire whatsoever to go back. What's interesting though is that I have yet to find an LCD TV that I can watch...they never look anywhere near as good as a plasma to me, although I know plenty of people who hate plasma. I guess it's all personal.

Analysis (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20808869)

1. They will produce only 2000 of those per year.
2. The product for OLED was selected not to be practical but newsworthy. Everyday Joe cares about TV-s, although he won't buy this one, he'll read about it, so newspapers will write about it. Consider: OLED has shorter pixel life and wastes less power than LCD+light. Where is this useful? Laptops (limited energy and no constant use). Where is it harmful? TV-s (constant use and unlimited AC power).
3. The design is made to impress, not be practical. Notice they put the tuner down in an ugly box to show off the very thin OLED display (no backlight). Notice the off-center hinge, designed to stress how light the screen is (puts unneeded stress, however small, on the materials).

Bottom line is, of course, great that someone is pushing OLED for something bigger than a camera preview screen. But it's NOT mass produced product. They make just few units, to make the news.

It's a product straight from the PR department. I suspect Sony Rolly will have similar fate.

Those aren't products made to sell, they're made to rebuild the image of Sony as the cool tech company. However, years ago they were the cool tech company which mass produced goods that are at the same practical, high tech, and luxury.

Those new gadgets don't send the same message. Wish them good luck with this, maybe if they keep producing gadgets like those at this pace, at some point they'll hit a homerun again...

Re:Analysis (1)

imstanny (722685) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809361)

Why aren't they made to sell? Since it's actually available to consumers, this is more than just proof of concept. After all, a product's existence is eventually determined by market's demand, and its price will be determined by the increase in scale of production and improved manufacturing techniques. Take a look at LCD/Plasma TV prices and sales levels Pre Y2K; OLED may follow the same path. Whether or not that technology will do so, however, willd depend on market conditions (demand, costs, competitors, etc) - not Public Relations.

Re:Analysis (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809419)

They're available to sell, but they are not designed and destined to sell well. They are designed and destined to do well in the news outlets.

It's called halo product [slashdot.org] . It's supposed to improve the sales of other Sony products and improve the perception of Sony as a whole.

Another example of halo product are the most most top of the line graphics cards made by NVidia and ATI, not many of those get bought, but they affect purchase decision for the lower end products, and make the news.

Re:Analysis (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809517)

Ops, the link above was supposed to go to the halo effect article on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] . Sorry.

should be a monitor (1)

llZENll (545605) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809099)

why are they marketing it as a tv? who the hell cares about about have 1M:1 contrast when watching a 80s rerun? they should be marketing it as an awesome desktop publishing and imaging monitor for PCs and Macs, or perhaps studio monitor. i'm just happy they are finally coming out with something that actually may have better image quality than my 22" CRT, looks like i could be upgrading in 2 years or so :)

Re:should be a monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809207)

Who the hell cares about it period? An 11" display is nothing to write home about. Shit, my dick is longer than that.

Re:should be a monitor (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809367)

they should be marketing it as an awesome desktop publishing and imaging monitor for PCs and Macs
Except that at a resolution of 960x540 (or so I read), it isn't so awesome...

Wrist Phone (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809105)

Where's my 2-way wrist radio [answers.com] , which we'd now call a "wristphone"? Starring another Modern innovation, the videophone?

I might not whine about no flying cars as much, if we could just get some of the cheaper items that don't crash into neighbors' roofs.

Re:Wrist Phone (1)

baker_tony (621742) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809523)

a) Google "wrist phone" b) Do you mean video calling, which you can do with most modern cell phones? Well, at least cell phones not in the US...

Re:Wrist Phone (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809873)

None of those are much better than the lame flying cars we sometimes see demo'ed. If they had little OLEDs like the one we're discussing, they might actually be worth using - wrist video calling.

Not interested.... because it's a Sony! (0, Offtopic)

tfg004 (974156) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809111)

Since this thing is a Sony, I'm sure it will be overloaded with DRM.

Sony has proved several times in the recent past that they cannot be trusted anymore regarding respect for people's privacy and consumer rights. I'll be saving my money for when the more decent and trustworthy manufacturers start selling similar products.

Bye bye, Sony! Whatever fancy products you'll offer, I'll never do business with you anymore.

Re:Not interested.... because it's a Sony! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20810397)

Oh my god! Sony is so evil! They eat babies and commit genocide!
You do realize that each division of Sony is pretty much cut off from the other, right? To the point that they even forget to share technological advances with one another - it's a big embarrassment for them. Sony BMG music sucks. Sony pictures sucks. Sony Computer Entertainment... was three good companies, that aren't exactly evil now, just inept. Sony Consumer Electronics makes some a-grade stuff with rare exceptions that are just lemons.

Yeah... the TV will be unusable with DRM... I bet if you lived in Japan, you'd cancel your Sony Life Insurance policy and insist that your wife never wears Sony makeup either FOR FEAR OF DREADED DRM... lol

Brilliant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809173)

The XEL-1 is an 11 inch display that is only 3mm thin.

These go to Eleven!

If I had any idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809237)

I thought the idea was to have a big tv.

So there isn't really any benefits of the screen over LCD or plasma apart from the contrast and the wattage in that article. Are sony be going to subsidise the carbon credits on these things?

Paid by the Word (1)

Zero_DgZ (1047348) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809383)

Was whoever wrote this paid for each time he/she/it wrote "XEL-1 OLED TV?" I count five instances of "XEL-1" in the summary alone.

Missing the point (1)

ExternalDingus (951990) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809595)

Everyone who is saying this thing needs to be 40 inches is missing the point, it doesn't need to get bigger.. it needs to get smaller! If you shrink this ultra hi def oled screen to the size of a pair of glasses you can take your "40 inch" screen wherever you go and you only need one for every room in your house!

Re:Missing the point (1)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809735)

Another way of looking at that equation is "but you need one for every viewer, instead of just one for your TV room".

obligatory monty python reference (3, Funny)

kevin.fowler (915964) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809631)

Oh sir... it's only wafer thin!

Contrast ratio claims are ridiculous (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 6 years ago | (#20809673)

There is no "one accepted way" to measure contrast ratio, so manufacturers will make up the most ridiculous numbers to make them sound better.

1,000,000:1 is far, far greater than projected film in a darkened theater (which is probably around 200:1) which still has the greatest contrast ratio.

Re:Contrast ratio claims are ridiculous (1)

^_^x (178540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810325)

I find you generally just need to know overall and simultaneous (instantaneous?) ratios.
My TV has a 3000:1 contrast ratio (if it showed a white screen then a black screen...) and an 800:1 instantaneous ratio (on any given frame.) It slightly brightens and darkens the backlight so its overall dynamic range is greater than the range at any given instant.

"Only" 3mm thin? (2, Funny)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810279)

That's too bad. I was hoping for 2mm thin, but this one is only 3mm thin.

Those marketeers are too smart for their own good.

Cut the slashvertisements please (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810537)

The least the editors could do when editing a summary is fix marketing bullshit like "3mm thin". It's "3mm thick".

While I'm here let me tell the eds about this other thing a lot of news sites like to have called "balance". In this case, it might have helped to mention the high cost in order to give the reader a full and balanced overview. Relying on tags is not the way to run a reputable news site.

Oh, wait...

What a price... (1)

paul.tap (717722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20810989)

...I can buy a keyboard for that!
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...