Sony Launches 3mm Thin XEL-1 OLED TV 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)."
So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Well when the price of these things comes down, we can have free (ad-supported) breakfast cereal!
If one rotates the cereal box for landscape mode, these panels are already about the right size.
Just watch the ads and some other Sony DRM content and the spout is released for you to pour o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lifespan? (Score:5, Insightful)
Has something changed recently, or is the TV likely to start looking funny in a year when the blue fades?
Re:Lifespan? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Why not double blues? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the problem with blue was exactly that energy issue. The per-photon energy of blue light is large enough to put serious stress on molecular bonds - more than enough to bleach out most organ
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why I was asking what had changed, but thanks for your attempt to appear like you have knowledge on the subject.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 inche
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With desktop LCDs still shipping 19" at 1280x1024, 12" at 1024x768 isn't half bad.
RJ45? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:RJ45? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 pa
Re:RJ45? (Score:5, Funny)
An Internet connection of course. How else are they going to disable it when you play non-approved content?
Looks like it's for LAN stuff (Score:2)
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 . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Built-in rootkit, duh! How else is it going to infect your PC?
How do you get a rootkit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux, however, doesn't protect you from Sony batteries. (BOOM!)
Very nice, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The image on these things is simply amazing, and makes it hard to return to your LCD. People buying this are buying it fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The box below is like half the size of an ordinary keyboard, or something like that.
How they plan to charge $1,740 for 11 inches is beyond me. I know Japanese people like things small and dainty, and need small stuff for small apartments, but aren't they exaggerating here?
Re:Very nice, but... (Score:5, Funny)
My understanding is that he is a very high class kind of guy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Size does matter (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They use video-support, so they can all see what the camera sees.
Being this low-power, and compact, I think they will start buying them. 11 inches might be a little too big. However, I would think that isn't a biggie.
Not to mention to contrast ratio will be a hit with the still-photographers. They shoot digital as well. They will be getting a better idea of how this will work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
my 2$ (Score:3, Interesting)
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$ (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Power consumption? (Score:5, Informative)
Current laptop 17" LCDs have power consumption around 15W or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but not at that brightness level. I'd be more curious to compare it to a desktop LCD or a modern LCD TV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
low power ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Power [W]=(0.1229 W/in^2)*(Screen Size [in])^2+6.89 W
So for these TVs, it seems that 6.89 W is the minimum overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
"Early adoption always had its price." (Score:2)
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)
That contrast ratio implies the blacks are good? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 peach
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I said I was looking at it 90 degrees on, I meant 90 degress from normal, which would be 180 degrees I guess. Basically, I was looking at the thing sideways
Re:That contrast ratio implies the blacks are good (Score:2)
Frankly, I'm not missing my CRT much. I even had high end consumer displays, 21" flats. I hated how the geometry gradually shirts over time, I hat
Re:That contrast ratio implies the blacks are good (Score:4, Informative)
What people don't realize (because CRTs typically don't include contrast specs) is that while a CRT can achieve ~15,000:1 dynamic contrast (i.e. the ratio between an all white and an all black screen), the reality is when you put both black and white together, one washes the other one out. CRTs, in actuality, can't do much more than about 500:1 contrast.
The key point is that dynamic contrast is not a bullshit marketing term. The reason CRTs have apparently great black levels is because their dynamic contrast is much higher than that of LCD screens. An LCD with a panel contrast of 1000:1 and no other backlight tricks will have a dynamic contrast of 1000:1. Thats why in bright-overall scenes, it looks GREAT, but in dark scenes it washes out. In bright scenes on an LCD vs a CRT, you're basically comparing ansi contrast to ansi contrast, and LCD can get ~1000:1 with no washout. A CRT can't. In dark screens, an LCD can't make quite as dark blacks, so you're now comparing dynamic vs dynamic contrast. The CRT could pull in 15,000:1, but the LCD is still stuck at 1,000:1.
Current displays improve this by varying the intensity of the light source, then stretching the brightness of an average-dark image to maintain the full panel contrast. That way, you can get the full ansi contrast over a wider range of actual brightness values. It looks like current LCD monitors vary the black light to increase dynamic contrast from 1000:1 to 3000:1, and LCD projectors can open and close an aperture in the lens to jack dynamic contrast up to 10,000:1.
The point is, there are two types of contrast. LCD beats the crap out of CRT in one type, but CRT beats the crap out of LCD in the other type. Neither specs are marketing BS, and you need to know both to understand how contrasty a screen will look in practice.
Analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
I'd say laptops get more use than TVs. Most laptops are used in a business environment where people use them at least 8 hours of the day. Home TVs on the other hand are only on when the family/person is there to watch it. So in order to match the 40 hour work week for a business laptop, a TV would
should be a monitor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrist Phone (Score:2)
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.
Dick Tracey be damned (Score:2)
Have you SEEN the size of high end watches these days? Like a Panarai? Most modern cel phones are smaller.
Just put a friggin cel phone on a Panarai watch strap. Voila. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile phone design really is a cinch!
Re: (Score:2)
Paid by the Word (Score:2)
obligatory monty python reference (Score:3, Funny)
"Only" 3mm thin? (Score:3, Funny)
Those marketeers are too smart for their own good.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be surprised if when OLED tv's reach ubiquity they're still 3mm thick.
The problem with real thin stuff is... well, it aint strong.
There's been a race for the thinnest watch for just about as long as there've been watches.
Concord [orolus.com] won, but at 1mm thick the watch had a problem - you can't actuall wear it - it bends. In practical terms they need to be a bit thicker [kioooe.com] than that.
So I sorta wonder about 3mm. Especially once you get into
Re: (Score:2)
3mm is plenty thin for me, as it's thinner than, oh, a piece of sheetrock, for example. I was just making fun of the marketeers. They failed to realize that by combining "only" with the reversal of thick to "thin", they actually inverted the meaning.
As for your watch example, 1.15mm is impressive, but using a quartz movement to achieve it is cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda tough to make a mevhanical watch with dozens of parts very thin. It's hard enough to make it thin with quarts; in the case of the Concord Delerium IV there are no plates, the caseback is part of the movement. Swatch ended up doing this too.
Not all watches went for thin.. (Score:2)
It's IMHO totally pointless, but quite a fun idea..
Cut the slashvertisements please (Score:2)
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...
3 cm instead on 3 mm ? (Score:2)
Why so expensive and only (Score:2)
It sounds like OLED should be much cheaper to mass produce than LCD so these prices are artificially high and should come down fast once they get the kinks worked out.
Call me when there's a 50" full HD spec(1920x1080) one for sale around the same price as LCD and plasma are now.
45W? I hope that's a typo... (Score:2)
Seems a bit pricey to start with ... (Score:2)
Re:Sir Not-so-Thin (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this particular device is not that useful and very expensive. But it's undeniably sexy.
Marketing (Score:2)
> 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: (Score:2)
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 ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You live alone, don't you?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Contrast ratio claims are ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Now, what makes this irrelevant is of course the fact that because of the very nature of this display, the real issue for contrast is not the contrast ratio in a completely dark room, but the actual brightness related to ambient light. When you factor in the ambient light as the real source of light in the black parts, you'll get a different ratio, but this is the only technology where the ambient light, even in a really dark room, is close to the only source of light in the black parts of the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
I did some work at the Sony Broadcast Lab in Whitby. Sony is a damn big company and there's a major disconnect between the video people and the music publishing poeple. They may as well be different companies for all practical purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
I may not be the only one, but they should be separate companies. That way there's no pressure from the media division onto the tech division to build in some crap DRM or other "protection" technology, and we'll go back to getting cool products from Sony.
Re: (Score:2)
BECAUSE EVERY MILLIMETER COUNTS!"
Uh, no. It's because paint is cheap ($30) and tiles are not ($1 ea).
Re: (Score:2)
Layne