Kodak Releases Digital Camera With OLED Display 216
arth33 writes "Kodak has announced the LS633 Digital camera with OLED display. The camera and imaging specs are pretty standard (3.1 MegaPixels, 3x Optical Zoom, etc) but the viewfinder screen is a 2.2" OLED screen with a resolution of 512 x 218 pixels. According to the press release at DPreview, 'This large, full color, full motion, flat panel display is sharp, bright and features 165 viewing angles for on-camera viewing and sharing. Packaged in a stylish, metal body, the LS633 is perfect for users who want to show off their pictures on a cutting-edge OLED display.' All this and it's pretty cheap at US$399, and is expected on shelves in April in Australia, Europe and Asia.
More pics and information is also available at LetsGoDigital."
OLED? (Score:1)
Is it smaller or brighter or what?
Thanks!
Re:OLED? (Score:3, Informative)
More info here [kodak.com].
Re:OLED? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OLED? (Score:3, Funny)
But don't worry, your camera will be lost, stolen,
or broken before that happens.
Re:OLED? (Score:3, Insightful)
>But don't worry, your camera will be lost, stolen, or broken before that happens.
Actually, if it's a Digital Camera, it'll be obsolete long before the OLED conks out...
Re:OLED? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OLED? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, and it'll probably be just a coincidence that these problems are solved right about the same time that the major players' huge investments in the old LCD manufacturing tech begins to break even. :-)
--
Re:OLED? (Score:2)
My favorite theories are the ones with no data at all, supporting or otherwise.
Why Organic? (Score:2)
Re:Why Organic? (Score:3, Informative)
A new OLED variant, phosphorescent OLED (or PHOLED) has been developed for portable phones. This variation is a low-power variant developed by Universal Display.
Re:OLED? (Score:2)
Without a backlight, black really is black. So white seems very much brighter.
They also make a much wider range of colours than LCD , so you get much brighter more realistic colour gamut.
Re:OLED? (Score:2)
> [OLEDS] don't require a backlight (as like normal LEDs, they produce their own light.)
LCDs are filtering the unwanted wavelengths, which are previously quite costly produced by the backlight.
And, as people with a digital camera should know, using the LCD drains a lot of energy from the battery.
Re:OLED? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but until there's a +1 Regurgitation score, +1 Informative will have to do.
will replace TFTs and plasma screens (Score:5, Informative)
More comparible to TFT diplays than to LEDs.
Cheaper
x10 (or more) faster response times (compared to traditional TFTs)
No need for backlight
Even thinner than TFTs
Can be completely transparent
Can be flexible
see universal display [universaldisplay.com]
extract: greater brightness
faster response time for full motion video
fuller viewing angles
lighter weight
greater environmental durability
more power efficiency
broader operating temperature ranges
greater cost-effectiveness
Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?
Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens (Score:2)
No, "the industry" doesn't have an incentive, but fortunately for us, individual companies do.
TheFrood
Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens (Score:2)
Well, a plasma making company might not, or a lcd making company might not, but think. It only takes one company to start selling these amazing, low cost, great contrast, super thin, all around amazing monitors(or tvs) and the prices come crashing down. So does the competition. They will either adapt to sell what everyone wants, or they will die. All the beauty of competition. It only takes one success.
Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens (Score:2)
They're not necessarily making a lot of money. What they make is a factor of their profit margin and the number of units sold. Selling a cheaper product at high volume could easily lead to higher profits. After all, how many people do you know that own plasma screens? The first company to commercialize OLED in TV displays, at a reasonable price, would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens (Score:2)
The first company that can make OLED's truly moisture-proof and can make them in 17 to 21 inch true diagonal sizes will truly making money hand over fist. Especially considering the fact OLED's are likely going to be several times cheaper than TFT LCD's.
Re:OLED? (Score:5, Informative)
LCD (liquid crystal displays) are constructed of a bunch of liquid crystal material sandwiched between glass plates. Liquid crystals are made of molecules that are very long and thin. In the nematic (or twisted nematic) phase, they line up to all point in the same direction (in twisted nematic, used in many LCDs, the orientation changes as you move between the two glass plates, but is locally the same). By making fine scratches in the glass plates, they can be forced to line up in specific directions, such that the rotate the polarization of light going through it by 90 degrees (or more for STN -- super twisted nematic). You then put polarizers on the faces and you have something that blocks light from a flourecent tube. By applying an electric field to the liquid crystal, the molecules rotate such that they don't rotate the polarization, and it now transmits light. Passive matrix LCDs scan one row at a time and rely on the liquid crystal molecules being slow to reorient to preserve them until the next scam, where as active matrix (TFT -- thin film transistor) displays have little transistors that hold a charge on each cell from one scan to the next.
The big problems with LCDs are that they need a backlight to get good contrast and that they throw away a lot of light because the lamp has to be on even when the pixels are black and a lot of light is lost to color filters to make different color pixels on RGB displays. Also, since it works by rotating polarization, it is very angle sensitive, and they are very slow.
OLEDs are an array of LEDs that are made with an organic polymer semiconductor. Like normal LEDs, they emit light when current passes through a diode, the wavelength of the light being dependent on the band gap of the semiconductor. However, it is much easier to make a fine grid of closely spaced pixels with OLEDs than regular LEDs. The solve almost all the problems of LCDs except that they tend to break down if any moisture gets into them, and water is extremely hard to get out and keep out so they tend to have a realatively short shelf-life. I assume that this problem has been mostly solved here, or a bunch of people are going to get cameras whose display will die within a year or two.
Re:OLED? (Score:2)
This is the only way I see OLEDs being acceptable in consumer electronics, unless the lifetime of the device is planned on being very short/disposable. A distinct possibility.
Its organic!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Its organic!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Its organic!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Its organic!! (Score:2)
I often wear the hat of an organic chemist, and occasionally run into the idea that "organic chemist" is an oxymoron. Of course the confusing point is that the word organic is not really a synonym for "natural". The word organic has a broader set of meanings.
Re:Its organic!! (Score:1)
Re:Its organic!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Its organic!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Its organic!! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, Thank God.
It really pisses me off when they put all those chemicals and pesticides in my LEDs.
399.00 isn't a bad price (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:399.00 isn't a bad price (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if he'll review the Kodak camera or not, but DPReview is a good site for practical information like that.
Um, they DO this... (Score:2, Informative)
This looks like a nice, comprehensive comparison based upon battery life.
Just check around on the site... you never know what is out there until you look..
-------------------
Stupid should hurt.
Re:Um, they DO this... (Score:1)
Re:399.00 isn't a bad price (Score:2)
Re:399.00 isn't a bad price (Score:2, Informative)
why nobody else? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why nobody else? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which really figures... (Score:2)
Which really makes sense, since organic LEDs are fancy organic chemicals printed on a film, along with printed wiring.
Right up a film manufacturer's alley.
Only surprise (if any) is that Kodak beat Polaroid to it. Polaroid has always been about doing off-the-beaten-track tricks with films.
Re:Which really figures... (Score:2)
Does this also explain the lack of displays? (Score:2)
Q: Pros and Cons of OLED? (Score:2)
When I read about OLEDs a couple of years ago they seemed to offer brilliant displays compared to competing technologies, such as LCDs. I don't know how the cd/cm^2 compare quantitatively, though.
But, IIRC, there was some mention of problems having to do with the lifetimes of the displays, blue colors, over a year.
Have all of the problems with OLEDs been overcome? Will the viewfinder look as nice 5 years from now?
Re:why nobody else? (Score:1)
Re:why nobody else? (Score:1)
kodak's web site (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because... (Score:2)
Re:Probably because... (Score:2)
Thanks!
Re:Probably because... (Score:2)
Re:kodak's web site (Score:2)
What? (Score:1)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
On typical cameras and monitors, any color LCD display will require a big bright power-hungry light source running behind the LCD to make it glow.
But not in this camera, the Organic LED (read light EMITTING diode) actually glow ! There is no need for a big power hungry light source, since the individual pixels generate light.
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
The light source part is correct, but the "power-hungry" part isn't true. Current backlighting is performed with either White LED's, electrolum, or flourescent tubes, with the flourescent tubes actually being a bit less power-hungry, but, obviously, a little more fragile. The only efficiency is gained by directly viewing the light source (the Light-Emitting-Diode (LED) part of OLED) instead of indirect light via reflection by the current backlighting methods. The big gain is in the Organic (O of OLED) part of the process, which in this case refers to organic plastics (ie, cheap plastics). Great technology, and I'm glad their finally shipping mainstream products, but the parent article and one of the linked articles imply great power savings, which isn't so. Slight efficiency gains, but not leap forward technology in power savings.
Re:What? (Score:2)
You make many good points, Tonto.
For sure though, for many moon now we see the white man with power hungry backlighting.
Perhaps this "White LED" you talk of is making the backlighting situation better, but remember what happened when we befriended the White Man. He brought us blankets which made our people sick. I say we should attack this White LED on sight!
Too lazy to read article (Score:2)
That's about the most informative sentence I've ever read.
So, um. How about some more vital stats, such as life expectancy (since that is one of the drawbacks of organic LED)?
Mirror (Score:2, Informative)
Please use, I'm measuring the Slashdot effect. (Seriously! There's no such thing as a karma whoring AC.)
Any users have some real world feedback? (Score:1)
Any slashdot'rs own/played with one? I'm interesting in these new OLEDs and their real world usefulness.
Re:Any users have some real world feedback? (Score:2)
Battery life? Dude, you took a wrong turn - this is PRNewswire now, not Slashdot. All you need to know is that it's got a "stylish metal body"...
8-inches Kodak OLED (Score:4, Interesting)
Somehow, the article has vanished. Even from Google.
The truth is out there and yes, I want to believe.
Re:8-inches Kodak OLED (Score:2, Interesting)
There seems to be some speculation about an Apple tablet... a small, white plastic enclosure about 5 by 7 inches is currently being produced by Apple. Maybe we'll see these 8 inch Kodak OLEDs as the display? Are OLEDs touch sensitive or able to accept magnetic stylus input?
Re:8-inches Kodak OLED (Score:2)
Re:8-inches Kodak OLED (Score:2)
Military what? Any military project I am/was aware of has always used proven technology, especially in the area of displays. The only are where I have ever seen flat panel displays in military use has either been desktop computers or proof of concept stuff. Everyone else is using CRT's still for a variety of reasons. Therefore, I would find it difficult to believe that organic displays had military applications. I would believe the Apple PDA rumors before I buy any claims of organic display use in military applications *yet*.
Re:8-inches Kodak OLED (Score:2)
But you are right; they'd want to see it proven first.
OLED is cool! (Score:4, Insightful)
Small displays (Score:2, Interesting)
order one for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/AM550L.
Re:order one for yourself (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/AM550L.jh
Kodak 14n (Score:2)
I've seen one of these (Score:2, Informative)
I invented the Oleo Display (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I invented the Oleo Display (Score:2, Funny)
I invented the Oreo Display
It's About Time! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Economics of RPGs (Score:4, Funny)
And now this. (Score:5, Informative)
But even with all the explanations on how much better than LCD it is, its hard without at least a picture. Here is that picture. It was taken at the CES trade show.
WARNING: looking at this picture may make you realize how crappy your LCD monitor really is and what you have settled for:
Ta da! [pocketpcthoughts.com]
It really shows the drawbacks of LCD's viewing angle and thickness because of backlighting. In the board the picture taker explains he has seen solid colour on this monitor there (demo running i guess) and the picture was perfectly even.
Anyways, thought i'd share! Enjoy.
Re:And now this. (Score:2)
Wow, jesus [insert expletive of choise]...
Now put that on my desktop...shit, my wall! and on my pda/phone, and I can die happy having seen sci-fi come to life
you could have a desktop LCD that thin, too (Score:2)
Re:you could have a desktop LCD that thin, too (Score:2)
Re:strength is important ... (Score:2)
heheh
Re:And now this. (Score:5, Informative)
I've been following OLED for a fairly long while not. It's a really nice technology and a huge step forward. For those who want the really fast run-down, the benefits are: no back-light so contrast and display life and power usage are far better; no polarizing filters so angle of viewing is much better; and because the material produces its own light, the range of color is astoundingly rich.
Down sides: It's still a transistor-per-pixel technology; there are complexities in the manufacturing; no on yet knows how to build them reliably for large-scale displays.
We shall see....
Re:And now this. (Score:2)
Although I haven't seen the Dell UltraSharp LCD screen I would expect they'd be compared to the LCD screens found in Apple laptops (except the 12 inch powerbook - they put shitty ones in those from what I hear).
If OLED screens are *so* much better than my current LCD I can't wait to see what's in store.
Re:And now this. (Score:2)
Is that 160 degrees without color distortion? Being able to read it is one thing. Having all the colors look right is another. An OLED display shows colors correctly for almost any angle, were even the new dell LCDs can't do that past 90 or so degrees.
Re:From where do you measure that angle? (Score:2)
At least that's how display manufacutrers talk about it.
Wish they had it for ... (Score:3, Insightful)
the Gameboy advance
now that would sell!!
Re:Wish they had it for ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It might just happen. (Score:2)
Sure, it may end up making the unit cost US$150 instead of the current US$100, but I'm sure not a few users would love the brighter, clearer display of OLED compared to the current LCD display on the Gameboy Advance models.
Argh (Score:2, Insightful)
It's probably more expensive, but I just can't see why that it isn't being used in more cameras already.
2.2 is pretty darn cool though. 1.5 is just too small sometimes to see if a picture is truly in focus.
When can we expect OLED VR Shades? (Score:2, Interesting)
Carp! ...uhh, I mean... CRAP! (Score:2)
The Kodak EasyShare LS633 zoom digital camera is designed for photographers who want to capture and share photos while enjoying the benefits of advanced technology.
Criminy, who writes this crap -- Kodak's marketing division? If I was going to waste my education by rearranging cliches on paper instead of doing actual writing, I'd at least have the respect for my audience to use a cliche dictionary to hunt down some really good ones. This sucks! It is actually **so** **painful** to read, I can't stop reading it. I might have to print it out and put it on my refridgerator at home. I'll be saying this to my wife and friends and greeting people in church with it while it haunts my down-home midwestern Ohio sensibilities like a crummy Britney Aguilera J'Sync song.
You know, I can live with the evil, but I can't stand the stupidity.
Kodak's (lack of) Linux Support (Score:2)
Screw them.
I want a passive screen... (Score:2)
I know there's been some research on that (ePaper ?) but what's the current state of it ?
Expect colors to look like crap for everyone else (Score:2)
Re:Off-topic, but .. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Batterylife (Score:1)
Re:U.S. Women to withhold sex until peace with Ira (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:selective demoing at its best (Score:4, Informative)
The big problem with these right now, as has been pointed out many times, is that they fade over time. No one really knows the exact reason for this, but oxygen is a big culprit. They are combatting this with diffusion barriers, similar to the oxygen diffusion barriers used on plastic beer bottles, which use cobalt scavengers to trap oxygen.
Re:gfasdfads (Score:3, Funny)
Learn to read ;-) (Score:3, Funny)
It must be hard to position yourself at exactly one of those 165 descrete angles, though.
But seriously, how do you propose to view what is, for practial purposes, a two dimensional display from 90 degrees off the normal?
IOW, it is viewable from 180 degrees, but only if you point it at something that looks like the side of a camera body. Or a vertiacal line.
-Peter
Re:R&D guys. We are sick of CATHODES! SAVE US! (Score:2, Interesting)
There is an INCREDIBLE push in the laptop/tablet market (from engineering depts.) to get lighter, thinner, brighter, more energy efficient, and faster refreshing displays.
I'm a Lead EE guy for laptops/tablets here and we REALYL REALLY want to see these OLEDs get bigger.
We're working on those R&D companies.
Re:Are OLED displays more robust? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MegaPixels are MegaDumb (Score:2)
Yeah, but you have to hand it to the marketing genius who realized that...
...The megapixel number increases proportionally to the square of the dimensions.
...The increase from 1 megapixel to 2 megapixels sounds like twice the resolution.
...Most people are too lazy to multiply.
...Most people just want the biggest number. I mean, after all, how often have you heard a car manufacturer advertise horsepower, and make no mention of power/weight. Or they mention 0 to 60, but how often does that really matter? What I want to know is how fast can it go 50 to 70 so I can pass that granny in the Cadillac?
...The same thing that the guys who laid out Sears know: guys will find their way to the back where the tools are. People who know better will inquire beyond megapixels.
Re:MegaPixels are Usefull (Score:2)
Ouch, you may not have noticed Widescreen TV's. Using the same diagonal measurement you can sell these at a higher price since you get a longer diagonal for the same area compared to the old 4:3 aspect ratio. Like Megapixels this is just a marketing trick which not everybody have been cool about... [www.rte.ie]
Though, I must admit that the actual number of pixels isn't really as deceptive. You could argue that a small increase in x and y resolution is advertised as 4x the change, but at least it encourages improvement.
What about power consumption..? Better than TFT... (Score:3, Informative)
The other item about these displays is that they put off little to no heat and are thinner due to the lack of little lights needing to be placed behind the glass panel.
There is rumor that Apple has been developing an OLED with with it's partner Samsung for about a year now. Two of their manufacturing partners are suppliers to Kodak.
I would link, but it's hard to give links to Digitimes and Japanese articles.
Re:Marking Warpage Alert (Score:2)