Samsung Shows Off 21" OLED Display 260
aztektum writes "C|Net and Technewsworld.com have posted stories about Samsung's new 21" OLED.
Chosun.com has a picture and a projection that OLEDs will be a 2.2 billion dollar a year market by 2008."
LED Life shorter (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does pixel response time have anything to do with resolution? That should strictly be a function of pixel size, shouldn't it? I have a feeling that someone didn't translate something right, or else flat out doesn't know what they're talking about.
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Interesting)
Duh.
I'm too stupid for
-Jar.
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:5, Interesting)
Pop Sci link on wobulation [popsci.com]
Basically since DLP displays can't be made to have a physical resolution high enough for HDTV but they can change pixels awfully fast they have each DLP element alternate display of two different colors very fast which tricks the eye into thinking it sees 4 pixels worth of information. The article does a much better job explaining it.
But yeah, odds are just crappy journalism.
Re:LED Life shorter (Score:2, Interesting)
Well (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nice picture, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Traditionally the blue OLEDs have been the ones with shorter lifetimes not with poor color purity. I started doing resesarch on OLEDs in 1995 before most people had ven heard about them. But *much* research has been focused on better blue materials and they've made great strides in lifetime.
However, that the Samsung demo image contains no discernable blue is very strange indeed. I have my doubts that it was left out unintentionally.
power consumption? (Score:2, Interesting)
Picture (Score:3, Interesting)
I strongly doubt that this picture is actual footage from the display picture-quality. Seems to me that they've inserted a nice image with some photo-editing software. It is just to show the outer case.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, though, we see Sharp (for example) betting the ranch of LCDs, Toshiba and Canon going for broke on SEDs, Samsung and LG with these OLEDs, and other flogging plasma panels for all they're worth. Rather than competing on marginal features, they are all desperately competing in basic science and process engineering. It's amazing to watch, and I can imagine that the pressure on the development teams is intense -- because it's likely that all but one of these technologies will be abandoned when the winner is apparent.
I'm betting on SEDs, because they provide high quality, reasonable manufacturability, long life, and build on the best of current CRT technologies. OLEDs will rule if, in the end, it is possible to get the science to work -- I'm just not convinced yet that it is.
Thad Beier
Nash (Score:2, Interesting)
Almost forgot: (Score:5, Interesting)
To turn a pixel on, you apply an electric potential that breaks up the crystal lattice and turns the liquid crystal molecules vertically WRT to glass. This can be made faster by using higher electric potential, perhaps.
To turn the pixel off, the long molecules of the liquid cristal material have to turn and recrystallize parallel to the glass, creating the twisted lattice that turns the polarization angle of the passing light. This happens by itself, w/o any energy input to the material, so you can't just "crank up the power" and hope for a faster display - you have to invent a material whose energy is significantly lower when it's crystallized parallel to the grooves in the glass than when it's not.
OLED displays, OTOH, turns on and off within microseconds, just like any LED.
Semiconductor crystals vs. carbon chains. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your typical LEDs are large crystals with doping atoms substituted for a miniscule fraction of the regular atoms in the structure. This is an extremely stable arrangement of atoms and lasts a long time, despite the electrical forces applied to it. Even if an atom is knocked out of place it tends to fall back into place, and it takes an enormous amount of damage to make it stop working, or even become appreciably less efficient.
Organic LEDs are based on single small molecules consisting of a carbon structural backbone with a bunch of other stuff hanging off it. This is nowhere near as stable. When you hammer it with enough energy to make it vibrate and release a photon - especially an energetic blue photon, you're stressing it with an appreciable fraction of the energy needed to break the backbone bonds, and occasionally the bonds break. Once it breaks it doesn't heal - that molecule is no longer playing the game.
It's a dye. Notice how dies fade when exposed to sunlight (with its blue and ultraviolet photons hammering the bonds). Now imagine the dye molecules hammered directly by mobile energetic electrons and forced into an energy state higher than that supplied by a photon of the color they emit.
OLEDs, especially the blue ones, have a short lifteime. On an atomic scale it may be enormous. But on a human scale if you leave it on 24/7 the blue has lost half its intensity in a tad over a year. (More if there's a lot of blue in the image. And it will have a serious burnin issue so you'd better use a "screensaver" with a pattern that's designed to actually save the screen rather than being pretty moving wallpaper.)
Apparently they haven't come up with a good solution to the problem. But they're going ahead with production anyhow.
If they don't either provide a cheap replacement for the screen material or drop the price to the mid-to-low two-digit levels for ordinary screen sizes I predict that OLED monitors will get a rep for being unacceptably flakey within about two years.
Re:Well (Score:2, Interesting)
What might end up happening though, is this: OLEDs are cheaper to manufacture than LCDs, so a company markets one and prices it (say) 10% cheaper than an equivalent LCD. But if the manufacturing process is 50% cheaper, they're still making MUCH more profit than the LCD guys are. They might also take advantage of the "gee-wiz" factor and actually price them 10% MORE than the LCDs, knowing full-well that early adopters will jump all over it.
Next, other companies will respond with their own OLED offerings. Once competition is introduced, the LARGE profit margin will result in a price war and the prices will drive down close to cost. This will be partially benefitial to all manufacturers as long as the increase in volume makes up for the lost single-sale profit, but it will of course be nothing but good for consumers who will continue getting better and better displays for lower and lower prices.
Ahh, the joys of capitalism
Not necessarily (Score:3, Interesting)
Blue has been a very sticky colour to work on requiring some pretty exotic materials.
Re:Cell Phones and Cameras already have them (Score:3, Interesting)