Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Chi Mei Announces 20" Active Matrix OLED Display 173

Posted by timothy from the fall-prices-fall dept.
deglr6328 writes "The final barriers to OLED commercialization have been falling fast lately with Kodak's first product shipping soon, Samsung demoing a 256 color OLED wristwatch phone and now Chi Mei Optoelectronics announcing a 20 inch full color active matrix OLED display. The new display was made possible by a breakthrough using amorphous silicon for the TFT. The new technique is said to allow conventional TFT LCD manufacturers to convert their facilities over to OLED with relative ease."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chi Mei Announces 20" Active Matrix OLED Display More

Chi Mei Announces 20" Active Matrix OLED Display

Comments Filter:

  • if it's organic.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by very ( 241808 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:29AM (#5553111) Journal
    If it's organic, would it decay in time?
    • If it's organic, would it decay in time?

      As much as any other plastic component in your computer. Plastics are made from organic materials (oil = dead organic matter). OLEDS are basicly plastic LEDs.

    • Re:if it's organic.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Paul Johnson ( 33553 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:35AM (#5553164) Homepage
      Good question. Reading between the lines of the Cambridge Display Technology [cdtltd.co.uk] web site, it seems that colour purity and stability have been the big stumbling blocks so far. CDT have demoed small displays in the past, but I don't know how stable they were.

      Polymers tend to degrade with exposure to light, especially UV. In a display UV is not generally a problem but obviously light in general is.

      Paul.

      • Re:if it's organic.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zenyu ( 248067 )
        CDT have demoed small displays in the past, but I don't know how stable they were.

        I talked with someone working with them 2 years ago (at IBM). At that point they only lasted a few days in a darkened labs... but a lot of progress could have been made since then. They had a lot of promise even then though, low power & high-res, though they seem to have abandoned high-res here. Perhaps so they "live" longer? It could just be a yield thing though... (Or they are/were aiming for HDTV?)

      • Wrong sort of organic (Score:2, Informative)

        by flend ( 9133 )
        CDT work with novel polymer displays which, particularly in the blue, have stability problems.

        This display is made from small organic molecules - a more mature field and is unlikely to suffer degradation effects any worse than say, a plasma display.

    • I wouldn't buy one until I was sure that OLED doesn't suffer from the equivalent of screen burn on old CRTs. If the light output as a function of coltage/current changes over time for OLED, flat regions of colour would show ghostly afterimages. So if you switch to full screen video you'd get a ghostly desktop pager or whatever.

    • That's not as funny as it sounds. Those displays really decay in time and even worse, the aging of the three colors is not the same. That was mentioned here [heise.de].
    • Probably not a serious problem. If you look at the dupont site http://www.dupont.com/displays/oled/ [dupont.com] these appear to be "Polymer OLEDs" or LEDs made with basically a type of plastic. So think organic (carbon based) as in the plastic that makes your keyboard instead of organic as in a banana peel.
  • Hope we don't have to water them to make sure your screen doesn't turn yellow over time...

  • Will they take... (Score:4, Funny)

    by smaug195 ( 535681 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:31AM (#5553127)
    Kidneys as forms of payment? :-/

    Seriously how long before this technology becomes affordable?

  • I wonder if they've solved... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxlove ( 316502 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:31AM (#5553128)
    ...the problem with the blue LED fading over a few years of use? That would be a showstopper for me, unless these units are so cheap that I can buy a new one every 6-12 months without feeling the pain.
    • It all depends what you're using them to view.
      For some things, the blue's not a problem, as long as the red end of the spectrum's working fine ;-)
    • I also wonder about defects in general. If OLED's will be better then 99.99% defect free LCD's(which would be pretty good if we weren't talking about millions of pixels).
      • I also wonder about defects in general. If OLED's will be better then 99.99% defect free LCD's(which would be pretty good if we weren't talking about millions of pixels).

        I saw a 15" OLED screen made by Samsung at CES, and it was beautiful. I will not buy another screen until I can get an OLED one for a decent price. Utterly amazing. But only if the manufacturing process is near-perfect. The 15" screen had at least two bad pixels, and it only takes one to ruin the screen. Though they were only a few out

      • Re:I wonder if they've solved... (Score:4, Informative)

        by gollangana ( 643396 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:29AM (#5553430)
        LCDs have defects due to the failure of the Thin Film Transistors that control the state of individual pixels. Given that OLED displays will be using identical TFTs there should be a similar (or worse, due to failure of the OLEds themselves) rate of defects. However - when a TFT fails in an LCD it gives a light point, wheras when one fails in an OLED display it will give a dark point, which is much less annoying.
    • You aren't supposed to be watching blue movies anyway :-)
    • If they do decay, and they're so inexpensive that they are disposable, how recyclable are they? We've got landfills full of dead computer parts already and don't need to encourage it.

    • Dunno, but if you're still using Windows 9x/ME, your BSODs are gonna wear out those blue LEDs REAL quick...

  • Prices? (Score:2, Informative)

    by rastachops ( 543268 )
    Will this mean cheaper displays for the consumer or are they going to be sky high like LCDs were for a few years?

    Unless they are much greater than LCDs in some respect, I don't know why the regular Joe Bloggs would want to upgrade from a CRT.

    • Re:Prices? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gollangana ( 643396 )
      They are better than LCDs. Main reasons are (IMO) 1: they use less energy - backlit LC displays have to have a powerful backlight on constantly - even though only a small proportion of this light makes it through the LC layer. OLEDs are only lit when they need to be viewed. Energy consumption is a major concern in most mobile devices. 2: they can be viewed from any angle (up to 360 degrees if they are sandwiched between 2 layers of amorphorous silicon) - something LCDs still haven't got to grips with.

      • Re:Prices? (Score:5, Informative)

        by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteer@@@subdimension...com> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:16AM (#5553382)
        The specs are indeed impressive. A 20 inch display running at 25 watts is wonderful. Not only are these going to be good for desktops but think about laptop uses. Longer battery life, better viewing angle for that presentation at the office, and most importantly a bright and vivid display that wont make your eyes hurt like some LCD's. Also in a few years these things will of course be cheaper but better to. These are simply prototypes and first generation models. Soon they will draw LESS energy and be brighter, lighter, cheaper, and probably cool (maybe not possible). So im not buying one yet (living off a student's income... ie slim to nil) but i can see a time where these things are too good to NOT buy. Whoever is selling these is going to make a fortune because as the old saying goes i predict they will almost sell themselves.

        • The specs are indeed impressive. A 20 inch display running at 25 watts is wonderful. Not only are these going to be good for desktops but think about laptop uses.

          *Thank you* for pointing out that the real bonus here is the low power draw. While I am sure that every kind of computing device will continue to show increased performance in a raw sense, there are other things that are rapidly going to become more important.

          1. How long is this thing going to run on batteries?
          2. How quiet is this device?
          3. Ho
      • So in other words, they will be ridiculously expensive.

        Perhaps though it will help bring down the price of the conventional LCD screen. Although prices on LCD screens have come down a hell of a lot, they are still very much more expensive then a CRT.

        I'd be happy with a 20" normal LCD screen for under $550.
      • You forget some other plus points (don't blame you: there are so many :) ): less weight and thinner. This means slimmer and lighter laptops and PDA's :)

  • curiously, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:31AM (#5553132)
    what kind of electromagnetic emissions do these things put out? Supposedly the previous generation of LCDs were meant to be low-emissional, but I've noticed by carefully looking at the specs that many of them fail standards which CRTs typically pass.
  • Imagine a cinema screen done with OLED, no need for digital projection, it's be a digital screen.

    • Re:SuperSweet (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually the biggest issue with Digital Movie Screens would be not the screen istelf but the actual resolution (and therefore the bandwidth) required to fill such a screen with a high quality image. You would need a massive transfer rate between your media and the screen. I do not believe this would be feasable with current or near term (2-5 years) technologies.

  • Organic?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:33AM (#5553148)
    This monitor has been produced without using any pesticides.

    Or, it's ch-ch-ch-CHIA!

    • Re:Organic?? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      no, it means it feels REALLY good when you use the display.

      No wait, that's ORGASMIC light-emitting diodes, me bad...

  • Resolution? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Osty ( 16825 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:39AM (#5553189)

    From the announcement, it seems like this 20" display can only do 1280x768. I'm sorry, but at 20", it better be able to do better than that. If it won't do at least 1600x1200 (or I guess 1600x960, with that aspect ratio), I'm not interested. My 19" CRT comfortably does 1600x1200, so any LCD or OLED display would have to do at least that for me to consider upgrading.

    • Re:Resolution? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 3.5 stripes ( 578410 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:46AM (#5553227)
      Well, it is only the first generation, I'm pretty sure the first generation of LCDs wasn't exactly stunning in comparison to CRTs of the time. There were problems with clor depth, refresh, brightness, etc, not to mention sky high prices.

      Wait a few generations, I'm sure they'll become competetive.

      • Re:Resolution? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        A "1st Generation" LCD was intended as a high-end product. I have one here -- 21", 1600x1200, image quality very decent, original list was $8500 or so.

        OLED, on the other hand is intended to be cheap crap. Think CRTs -- the low end models had problems with color depth, refresh, brightness, etc for only about 20 years.

      • Re:Resolution? (Score:4, Funny)

        by jcenters ( 570494 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @05:49AM (#5553735) Homepage
        I'm pretty sure the first generation of LCDs wasn't exactly stunning in comparison to CRTs of the time. There were problems with clor depth, refresh, brightness, etc

        Well, all new display technologies have a problem with clor depth. That's just a given.

        Remember the first laptops? The clor to brigess ratio was terrible, and frankly, the clors were as deep as a strand of dental floss.

        When I got mine (A Compuq Bust-A-Gut 2000), the clors were so thin that it hurt my eyes. I angrily called the Compuq tech support line. They sent me a "Clor Inflation Pump", which was a temporary solution, at best.

        But nowadays, LCD technology has advanced by leaps and bounds (Though still not appropriate for a desktop, IMHO). My new Powerbook has a crisp, sharp display, and MY clors are as deep as Socrates. :-)

      • Hehe...LCD still doesn't hold up to CRT :)

        Oh, and jcenters...eat my sig. ;p

    • Re:Resolution? (Score:2, Informative)

      by ketamine-bp ( 586203 )
      For large screens with OLED, I'll assume it pretty hard to be something for Full-screen video or showing purpose, which is located far, far (i.e. >30cm) away from the viewer, hence the resolution need not be that big.

      FYI, a typical TV screen has much less resolution (i.e. around 640x480 - don't bitch me about the 525 lines bit - I know it and Please note that there is something called Vertical blanking interval, google it if you dare.) and I'm very, very happy with it.

      I think most of the guys/gals/geek

      • Re:Resolution? (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        1) TV in america (or more specificaly NTSC) is 640x480. PAL is 832x624 (625 actually, but 1 line is used for Teletext).
        2) Some of us, (including me) would actually like to do some work on our computers, now for me that means at least a resolution of 1600x1200 (if not 1920x1440).

        Bob

        • What kind of work do you do? I can see a need for high-res for graphic artists but most of us don't need that much for something as small as 20". 1280x768 is fine for word processing, web browsing, coding, etc.

          A good many people I know (clients) end up setting their resolution to 800x600 or 640x480 because it's easier for them to see and they don't know how to resize fonts and other screen elements. I find the machines painful to work on but it works for what they need.
        • who modded this crap as informative? "NTSC" most certainly is NOT 640x480 (active picture is 720x486) just as "PAL" is NOT 832x624 (active picture is 720 (EBU recommends blanking to 702) x576) And, yes, NTSC DOES have a full 525 transmitted lines just as PAL has 625 (and more than one is used for Teletext, numbnuts).

          Where the fuck are you getting this misinformation?
        • Alan was right.
          PAL interlaced = 720*576
          NTSC interlaced = 720*480
          (and some other may use 704*576,544*576, etc.)

          This is a total piece of crap.
    • do you remember first generation of CRT ?
    • 1280x768 is plenty higher than a domestic TV, and people pay a fortune for plasma versions of them.
    • Goddamn fancy CRT's - until they can do a proper orange text on black, I'm sticking with my dumb terminal.

      Hell, it took me years to stop missing the sound of the teletype!

  • What about the cost? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grumpygrodyguy ( 603716 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:39AM (#5553194)
    The new technique is said to allow conventional TFT LCD manufacturers to convert their facilities over to OLED with relative ease

    The real question is, will this mean affordable big screens?

    I saw a flatscreen LCD monitor in CompUSA the other day going for $2000. Sure it looked great, but $2000 is wacko. $200 maybe, but not $2000.
    • I saw a flatscreen LCD monitor in CompUSA the other day going for $2000. Sure it looked great, but $2000 is wacko. $200 maybe, but not $2000.

      There are plenty of 17" LCDs in the sub $500 range. Remember that a 17" flatpanel is equivalent in viewable area to a 19" CRT. People often think 17" LCD=17" CRT and should be comparable in price, but 17" LCD is closer in price to 19" CRT for good reason.

    • $2000 is the sweet spot! For a long time ('94-'99?), 20" and 21" CRT prices were flat at ~$2000. A lot of that had to do with the quantity sold (not many) since there weren't as many geeks then as now who would sacrifice the space (and their backs) to have a huge CRT around.
      Now with flat panel monitors, a 20" screen doesn't take much more desk space than a smaller one, and you can lift one without assistance. That is driving the sales, and they can get cheaper, but I think this is a significant point in
    • If you saw an LCD monitor for $2000, it was probably Apple's 23" Cinema Display [apple.com]. Keep in mind that this is a comparatively high-end product and most LCDs are much less expensive (even $200 for real low-end stuff), as mentioned by another poster. Also note that until recently, the Apple monitor was around $3300 or so, so prices are definitely going down.

      Basically, you can't judge the whole spectrum of something by the most pricey one, monitors included.

  • size isn't everything (Score:3, Funny)

    by tp9674 ( 196127 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:43AM (#5553212)
    From the caption

    'World's largest 20" OLED full color display'

    I'm I the only one that thinks 'world's smallest 20" display' would be more impressive"

  • Why this is important. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Freak ( 16973 ) <{anonymousfreak} {at} {icloud.com}> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:44AM (#5553216) Journal
    Yes, the early ones will be expensive. But, the whole point of this technology is that it is cheaper than LCD. Once the initial R&D has been paid for, they will be cheap. Plus, take a look at those specs. 300 Cd/m^2 at 25W. The Apple 20" Cinema Display only has 230 Cd/m^2, and it uses over twice as much power, 60W! These are a big deal because they use even less energy than an LCD, and they'll be easier to manufacture. (LCD's are actually easier to manufacture than CRTs, but economies of scale kick in, that's why CRTs are so much cheaper. Plus LCDs are prone to pixel failure, which OLED displays supposedly aren't.)
    • Well, since there are no backlight, and that they are simpler to manufacture doesn't grant them their success now.

      Actually, the key to win the their very fast switching times and the proven-technology that makes LED (well, the ye olde LED.)

      Hmm.. I still recall when I took my semiconductor physics lecture.. "Any diode can be light-emitting, ... once."

    • Re:Why this is important. (Score:5, Funny)

      by ndogg ( 158021 ) <the.rhorn@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @05:43AM (#5553715) Homepage Journal
      You're not making it easier for me to justify my new LCD that I bought that cost me an arm and a leg. It's really hard to type and get around these days.
  • But does the intensity of the colours fade with time? And further, does each intensity decay at a different rate?

  • After seeing the pic... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spytap ( 143526 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:00AM (#5553300)
    "World's largest frame for monitor" seems more appropriate! Jesus, there's like a foot of plastic around that thing! Kind of defeats the space saving purpose of LCDs if you have to take everything off of one side of the room just to fit the bitch in sideways!

  • Lookit that gigantic bezel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:05AM (#5553319)

    It's too bad that the monoitor has such a gigantic bezel. (And by "bezel", I mean the frame around the monitor) It's ugly, and it make placing multiple monitors side by side less useful.

    In fact, this is sort of a generic question: Why do current LCDs have a bezel, and can OLED technology remove the need for a bezel totally? I thought that the bezel was somehow related to the backlighting, and since OLEDs didn't have backlighting, they could be nearly frameless. But I might have just imagined that. Somebody's got to know.

    • Repeat after me : Pro-to-type!

    • Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MrMickS ( 568778 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @06:09AM (#5553817) Homepage Journal
      In fact, this is sort of a generic question: Why do current LCDs have a bezel, and can OLED technology remove the need for a bezel totally? I thought that the bezel was somehow related to the backlighting, and since OLEDs didn't have backlighting, they could be nearly frameless. But I might have just imagined that. Somebody's got to know.

      On the larger screens here are three possible reasons:

      1. Rigidity. By placing the screen into a large plastic frame the LCD doesn't form part of the physical structure of the display. So if you move it you aren't placing any stress on the TFT matrix.
      2. Damage resistance. Say you've just bought a nice big 23" LCD display with a thin frame around it. You position it on your desk and and a sitting admiring it whilst consuming your favorite beverage. The door opens, you turn forgetting the beaker in your hand and hit it against the edge of the display. Crack it's gone. If only you'd had a larger frame around the display.
      3. Apple started putting large displays around their LCD displays. Everyone else just had to copy :)
      It is interesting considering the lack of a frame around the display on my Ti PowerBook.
    • It's so dumbasses like me can go...

      Will ye look at the bezels on that!!!

      Seriously, I guess it's because it's a prototype and they need somewhere to house the control circuits that they won't have optimised / minaturised yet.

      I'd imagine that on a production model, the control circuitry could be at the back, and a minimal bezel used to allow you to construct your desired wall of 20" monitors.

  • The size doesn't matter to me, the resolution does. This one is only 1280x768. Hell, I run my 17" CRT at 1600x1200. Whats the point in having all that space if you don't make use of it. Show me one running at 1600 or above and I'll consider it.

  • It's still going to be useless for gamers... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...Unless it can avoid the prime reason why gamers avoid LCD's.

    Pixel refresh times. The very best lcd monitors have a pixel rise time of 12, and a pixel fall time of 4, giving you a disgusting scraping haze effect whenever turning in a 3d game, or scrolling lots of text fast.

    If they'd mentioned it's pixel refresh times, I'd have phoned them already, but since they didn't it's probably really pathetic (like regular lcd's)

  • Right on schedule (Score:3)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:43AM (#5553478)
    18 months ago, reports were that it would take 18 months for these to come out of the labs.

    Nice to see some industries aren't sitting around...now if we could only get Bluetooth, GSM, 802.g and fuel cells up to speed...
    • Oh yes!
      A mobile phone with a 20" OLED display...

  • A Good Tutorial on OLEDs (Score:5, Informative)

    by MjDascombe ( 549226 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:47AM (#5553500) Journal
    Can be found here [wave-report.com]
  • I've heard that OLED will solve the refresh rate problems that LCDs have had, so that they'll truly be able to replace CRTs once the prices come down and such. Is this true? The only thing holding me back from buying a new monitor is the fact that I want to game and work on the same unit -- I want the viewable space, smaller form factor and lightweight properties all rolled into one. Is OLED the solution that will bring this all to pass?
  • "World's largest 20" OLED full color display, WXGA (1280x768) with Low power consumption driven by Amorphous Silicon TFTs."

    The world's largest 20" display? Is it that much bigger than other 20" displays? Or does it just have a tremendously large frame?
  • Of course it does, whatever the girl says to you...size ALWAYS matters!
  • A lot of the discussion is a rehash of whether OLED's have advantages in power consumption, response time, viewing angle, and color compared to LCD's (the answer is yes). What no one seems to have noticed is that the point of the announcement is that this display was built using amorphous silicon TFT's. This is the same technology used for active matrix LCDS. This means that display companies that want to convert some of their LCD production capacity to OLEDs can do so without necessarily the $500,000,000-
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin

Close