Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Kodak Releases Digital Camera With OLED Display 216

Posted by timothy from the they're-here-they're-here dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kodak Releases Digital Camera With OLED Display More

Kodak Releases Digital Camera With OLED Display

Comments Filter:
  • Could somebody please explain what an OLED is, and how is it different from a standard LED?

    Is it smaller or brighter or what?

    Thanks!

    • Re:OLED? (Score:3, Informative)

      by AnimeFreak ( 223792 )
      It stands for Organic Light-Emitting Diode.

      More info here [kodak.com].

    • Re:OLED? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:42PM (#5429789)
      OLEDs are Organic LEDs. Basically, OLED technology is like LCD (in its application, the two are about as different as can be technically) except once the technology matures, OLEDs are cheaper, easier to manufacture and don't require a backlight (as like normal LEDs, they produce their own light.) It's not really any brighter (well it may be, but that's not its main advantage.) Basically, they're like LCDs except without all the drawbacks like viewing angle, price and physical sensitivity. Unfortunately, it'll be a few years before this technology gets into computer displays. The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired, but eventually this will be solved.

      • Re:OLED? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired,

        But don't worry, your camera will be lost, stolen,
        or broken before that happens.

        • Re:OLED? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JimPooley ( 150814 )
          >>The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired,

          >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)

        by whereiswaldo ( 459052 )
        Will this eliminate the problem of bright sunlight washing out the display? I can hardly see anything on my Kodak LCD when the sun is shining brightly. That really takes away from the experience since I _need_ the LCD to use my addon lenses (it's not an SLR camera).

      • Re:OLED? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@g m a il.com> on Monday March 03, 2003 @11:36PM (#5430081) Homepage
        The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired, but eventually this will be solved.

        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. :-)

        --

        • Fermi's Solution: Any sufficiently advanced civilization either destroys itself or transcends to superintelligence.

          My favorite theories are the ones with no data at all, supporting or otherwise.
      • What's organic about them?

        • Re:Why Organic? (Score:3, Informative)

          by aweraw ( 557447 )
          taken from http://www.cknow.com/ckinfo/acro_o/oled_1.shtml [cknow.com] A display device consisting of a series of carbon-based thin films sandwiched between two electrodes; one transparent (often glass). OLED technology holds promise because of the ability to tailor the organic molecules to vary color saturation, sensitivity, and other optical properties.

          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.           ;)
      • Also the colours look a lot better.

        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.
      • AFAIK, the most important part is, that they aren't as energy consuming as current LCDs, because of:
        > [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.

    • will replace TFTs and plasma screens (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:52PM (#5429856)
      Organic Light Emitting Device/Display

      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?
      • Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

        No, "the industry" doesn't have an incentive, but fortunately for us, individual companies do.

        TheFrood
      • Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

        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.
      • Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

        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.
        • The first company to commercialize OLED in TV displays, at a reasonable price, would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

          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.

  • Its organic!! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    OLED.. Organic LED

  • 399.00 isn't a bad price (Score:5, Insightful)

    by f00zbll ( 526151 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:32PM (#5429719)
    for a camera with 3.1megapixel and a screen that doesn't need back lighting. Now if only manufacturers would rate the battery life based on how many pictures it can take with one charge, that would help consumers.

  • why nobody else? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Snagle ( 644973 )
    why havent other companies implemented these into their high-end cameras? I would think somebody would first use these before kodak, I've always seen them as being a little slow on the digital camera technology...

    • Re:why nobody else? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:44PM (#5429810)
      Yeah, cept Kodak is the leading developer of OLEDs and owns almost all the patents on them. :)
      • Kodak is the leading developer of OLEDs and owns almost all the patents on them.

        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.
        • Maybe because Polaroid is basically tits-up right now? It's trading at about 2.2 cents/share at the moment. I don't even know if it's technically the same company as it used to be (I had thought it had gone bankrupt), since stock records only go back a few months for the company.
        • If Kodak owns all the patents and they don't have a vested interest in producing general purpose computer or video displays, does this explain why we keep hearing about OLED but we don't have many products? Or is the technology still not fully baked?

      • 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?

    • Umm, maybe because Kodak developed the technology and has just recently started licensing to other companies? Anymore info might get me fired. :)
    • damn...i just got shut down.

  • kodak's web site (Score:5, Informative)

    by mz001b ( 122709 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:35PM (#5429747)
    And of course, the info [kodak.com] is on their website. Including ``Not currently available in the U.S.''
    • ...They don't want US liability when the OLED display goes tits up 2 years after you buy the camera.
      • Can you give me some citations on this? I don't disbelieve you, but I'd like to see more info.

        Thanks!
        • Don't have any, I'm afraid, and a quick net search doesn't turn it up either. OLED longevity was a big concern during development, and I never saw any "yes we solved the problem" announcements. I was being a bit facetious about the "2-year" estimate. Please note that a technology that IS pretty widespread now ALSO has longevity problems; the plasma display. It's not as pronounced as OLED might prove to be, but if you run your expensive HDTV plasma panel constantly, you might wind up using it up. Heck, LCD panels have problems too, with the back lighting.
    • And of course, the info [slashdot.org] is on the website. Including ``... and is expected on shelves in April in Australia, Europe and Asia.''
  • Can someone explain why this is important at all? Kodak probably releases new cameras every week, it's what they do.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deathcow ( 455995 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:41PM (#5429780)
      It's really the OLED display thats innovative. (As you might hae gathered from the slashdot article title.)

      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)

        by jayteedee ( 211241 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @11:55PM (#5430172)
        require a big bright power-hungry light source running behind the LCD to make it glow


        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.


        • 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!
  • LS633 is perfect for users who want to show off their pictures on a cutting-edge OLED display.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    LetsGoDigital is going to fry any time now. Mirror available here [nada.kth.se].

    Please use, I'm measuring the Slashdot effect. (Seriously! There's no such thing as a karma whoring AC.)
  • Is this camera anything to be excited about? I 'ass'ume that that the camera's batteries last much longer than most digital cameras.

    Any slashdot'rs own/played with one? I'm interesting in these new OLEDs and their real world usefulness.
    • Is this camera anything to be excited about? I 'ass'ume that that the camera's batteries last much longer than most digital cameras.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:42PM (#5429791)
    This may be the first Kodak product that uses their own OLED technology, but does anyone remember the article (I think it was from CNET) which contained a quote by a Kodak executive saying they were already shipping 8-inch OLED displays in quantities to a "manufacturer" who they couldn't disclose? A very high resolution screen that would be used in a product that they didn't know much about but that would be a revolutionary one and be released in the first half of 2003?

    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)

      by elohim ( 512193 )
      I'd like to hear more about this. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadi d=21160
      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?

  • OLED is cool! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by corsec67 ( 627446 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @10:43PM (#5429801) Homepage Journal
    This is great. A consumer device with an OLED display. One of many technologies to counter our lack of significant innovation in batteries. I think that one of the best places for an OLED display is a pda. I hope one is out by the time that my NR-70's batteries die. Neither Handspring or Sony sell replacement batteries, which means that the PDA is a throw-away item, even if I can take out the battery by my self...

  • Small displays (Score:2, Interesting)

    by elohim ( 512193 )
    Why have digital camera displays been so small traditionally? Most models I've seen have had 1.5 or 1.8 inch displays. This 2.2 inch display is a nice boost, but there seems to be a lot of unused room (especially to the right of the screen, and below it, in the space occupied by a largish Kodak logo) on the back of this camera. I'd like a bigger screen to preview and review shots better. Is battery life the main concern that's keeping screens small?

  • order one for yourself (Score:5, Informative)

    by rabtech ( 223758 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @11:17PM (#5429997) Homepage
    You can order a development kit, complete with a working OLED screen at this link:

    http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/AM550L.j ht ml

  • What's even more interesting is that Kodak is finally shipping their 14n (full frame dSLR). Teeny tiny P&S isn't where all the cool stuff takes place, you know ...

  • I've seen one of these (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The display is incredibly vibrant. It's hard to describe in words, but the colors are very saturated, unlike the washed-out look of most LCD's. It almost looks like you're looking at a piece of paper, everything is so crisp, clear, and vibrant. Kudos to Kodak for getting this technology out into the marketplace. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of this in the near future!

  • I invented the Oleo Display (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @11:27PM (#5430046)
    But it kept melting at room temperture...

  • It's About Time! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cytos ( 605351 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @11:39PM (#5430103)
    Jeeze I remember when I was reading about this almost over three years ago! I'm glad to see that they are finally coming into the retail market. I'll be really excited when the flexible OLED [universaldisplay.com] screens become a retail product.

  • Re:The Economics of RPGs (Score:4, Funny)

    by Flakeloaf ( 321975 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @11:40PM (#5430107) Homepage
    Wonderful, now I can see a high-resolution preview of a grainy underlit image 20% more clearly!

  • And now this. (Score:5, Informative)

    by anethema ( 99553 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2003 @12:14AM (#5430263) Homepage
    There are people who have explained OLED, etc.

    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.
    • *pant*, *pant*...yes, that is heavy breathing. And yes, my underwear are damp now...

      Wow, jesus [insert expletive of choise]... ...I WANT ONE!!! MOMMY!!! PLEASE!

      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 :)
    • That doesn't look all that different from the screen of a Titanium Powerbook [apple.com]. I know, my desktop LCD is much thicker as well, but apparently that's not an intrinsic constraint of LCDs, it's just the way desktop displays tend to be built.

    • Re:And now this. (Score:5, Informative)

      by ajs ( 35943 ) <{ajs} {at} {ajs.com}> on Tuesday March 04, 2003 @03:13AM (#5431032) Homepage Journal
      True story: I followed that link, and I'm reading this on my laptop, so I had to tilt my screen a bit to see the image clearly! ;-)

      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....
      • I find it odd that you'd have to tilt your laptop screen. I have a Dell Inspiron froma year ago that has a pretty shitty screen. Since I bought it Dell has supposedly introduced the UltraSharp LCD screens which have an amazing quality to them. I currently use a 15.2 inch powerbook (867Mhz) and have no problems with the screen. A horrible estimate of trying to read the text in this post - I'd say a 160 degree viewing angle - still being able to read the text.

        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.
        • A horrible estimate of trying to read the text in this post - I'd say a 160 degree viewing angle - still being able to read the text.

          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.

  • Wish they had it for ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mabidex ( 204038 ) <mabidex@brainclone.com> on Tuesday March 04, 2003 @12:19AM (#5430294)


    the Gameboy advance ....

    now that would sell!!

    • I dont know if you meant this to be funny or not, but it is VERY true. Damn that GBA is dark. Non-backlit lcd screen. With the low power consumption of OLED, you will have all the goodness of the battry life, tons more brightness, better viewing angle if that matters, etc. Might even make the unit a tad cheaper.
    • I am pretty sure that Nintendo is shopping around for a company that can make OLED displays at a reasonably price for a future variant of the Gameboy Advance.

      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)

    by banzai75 ( 310300 )
    Why don't more cameras have a flip out lcd? After 5 minutes with a canon g2, I realized I couldn't go back to a standard digital camera. After using a flip-out rotating lcd, it would be painful to use a camera like this. It's nice being able to stand above or in front of your camera and still be able to see the lcd. It gives you a lot of freedom with your shots.

    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.
  • Any rumors/info on anything recent with VR Stuff?

  • 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.

  • Personally, i'll never buy a Kodak product again. I have a DVC-323 sitting here that basically only works well with Windows 98, because Kodak refuses to release the specs for it, even after it's been discontinued.

    Screw them.
  • What I want is passive screen technology. I'm tired of having a light bulb shining in my face, be it LCD, LEDs or CRT. I want something passive, that only reflects light. Yes it won't work in the dark, but so does a book. It'll be a lot more relaxing fo the eyes.

    I know there's been some research on that (ePaper ?) but what's the current state of it ?

  • ...when we start to see images on the net that was calibrated to look nice within the silly intense gamut of a OLED screen: it'll prolly look like washed out puke on all ordinary screens. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close