Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Displays Technology Science

Samsung Shows Off 21" OLED Display 260

aztektum writes "C|Net and have posted stories about Samsung's new 21" OLED. has a picture and a projection that OLEDs will be a 2.2 billion dollar a year market by 2008."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Shows Off 21" OLED Display

Comments Filter:
  • I want one!
  • by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:55AM (#11263380) Homepage Journal

    It's me, Peter. I'm writing from 2008.

    I still don't have an OLED display on my desktop.

    I'm still the only person I know that uses Linux as his primary desktop.

    I do have ATI drivers for Fedora Core 3 though!

  • organic (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:55AM (#11263382)
    do you need to feed this thing?
    • Seriously (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eMartin ( 210973 )
      Do you?

      I've searched and searched, and could never find an explanation for why these are refered to as organic.

      One article I found briefly mentioned bioluminescent life forms and how they are very efficient at producing light, but didn't say anything about what that has to do with OLED displays. And a PDF I found about the subject talked about the process of synthesizing the electroluminescent materials used. Sorry, I don't have the links to these.

      But if they are synthesized, doesn't that mean that they
      • Re:Seriously (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zemrec ( 158984 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @11:29AM (#11263672)
        AFAIK, they're called "organic" because they're based on organic molecules, i.e. organic chemistry, which is primarily concerned with carbon-based long chain molecules.

        IANAChemist, but that's my take on it.

        One thing that I wondered about is the article says OLEDs require more power than LCDs at the present time. I thought that one of the main benefits of OLED was that they'd use a lot less power and so would extend laptop battery life, amongst other things.

        Can anyone explain that?
        • Re:Seriously (Score:5, Informative)

          by khrtt ( 701691 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:11PM (#11264092)
          I thought that one of the main benefits of OLED was that they'd use a lot less power

          This is because an LCD display is inherently inefficient. We can realistically assume that the LCD matrix itself has near-zero power requirements, and the backlight is somewhat more efficient as the OLED in converting electricity to light. However, the color filters in the LCD cut out at least 2/3 of the light output, and the polarizers eats up 1/2 of the rest, and the remaining 16% of the light is the white level. In other words, if your LCD screen is all white the efficiency is no more than 16% of the backlight output, and if your screen is black, the efficiency is 0.

          There are other issues with LCD:

          1. Contrast. The black areas of the LCD always leak some light, creating the contrast issue. With OLED, black means "light off", so the issue isn't there, unless you were using shitty drive electronics that prevented you from turning the output off completely, which would be stupid.

          2. Viewing angle. All LCDs have this issue, even though it's gotten much, much better with the newer ones. The reason for this problem is that. angle of polarization doesn't rotate properly when the light goes through the liquid cristal at an angle.

          3. LCDs are mechanically awkward. They are sure better than a vacuum-filled glass jar, but there still have to be two sheets of high-precision glass with a precisely controlled gap in between, and a backlight tube. The whole thing is rather fragile. An OLED doesn't really have to have any glass in it at all, even though the first ones do.
          • Almost forgot: (Score:5, Interesting)

            by khrtt ( 701691 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @01:04PM (#11264563)
            4. LCDs are slow. This got better recently, but the problem is inherent in the way an LCD pixel turns off.

            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.
          • by ed1park ( 100777 ) <> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @01:15PM (#11264668)
            How LCD's work.

            Vacuum-filled glass jar? Hehe, i like that.

            Fill my jar with vacuum please! And don't be stingy about it! ;)
        • They use less, especially if your screen is
          black. Making the pixels white will use power.

          LCDs are back-lit, and this light is on, regardless
          wether your pixels are black or white.
        • emitters.

          Please note- I used to work in this field about 1.3 years ago, until I was laid off. There may have been some revolutionary advances since then (not bloody likely, but I'll caveat it anyway).

          The biggest issue right now with OLEDs is that there are two ways of creating the light- front emitting and back emitting. Either way you dice it you've got a non transparent ITO pad that cuts out your light- but Front Emitting fixes this by emitting thru the glass into your eyeballs.

          Unfortunately, ITO is
    • Re:organic (Score:2, Informative)

      by Munra ( 580414 )
    • No. It feeds you!
    • do you need to feed this thing?

      No, but when you get a virus, not only does it email phishing scams to everyone in your address book, it also sneezes on your keyboard.
  • Wooo! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Remlik ( 654872 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:55AM (#11263388) Homepage
    Awesome review, without any pictures or screen shots I imagine this to the best monitor ever. Since there is no price mentioned it must be under 100 dollars, and I only have to wait 3-5 years to get one that will last more than a month.

    Gosh I just can't wait!
    • Re:Wooo! (Score:5, Informative)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @11:18AM (#11263573) Homepage Journal
      so.. you were going to see the ultra high resolution and brightness on your screen?

      I always get a kick out of tv adverts advertising tv's, and showing off their awesome brightness, contrast or whatever..
    • Re:Wooo! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by anum ( 799950 )
      This is why the book is always better than the movie!

      I'm not quite sure this counts as a review however since this is a one off prototype. How's this for an understatement:
      "Making one is one thing, making many is another and then making them competitive with established screen technologies is a totally other ball game," Semenza said.

      The real point of this article (which didn't make the summary for some reason, I wonder why?):
      "However, the Samsung announcement is noteworthy because its 21-inch prototype O
      • Although electron guns have improved slowly over the years, they still degrade slowly and they still have a failure rate (filament open-circuits). Also, the phosphors become less efficient and the glass darkens due to xrays.
    • Since there is no price mentioned it must be under 100 dollars

      Or over 10.000. When i saw no price, my though was "better dont ask"... maybe when they produce it by thousands things will be more clear.

    • I believe it was a 15" white OLED panel.

      Funny thing was every evening they would take down the panel and put up another one in it's place.

      Literally they were driving the thing so hard it would burn out in less than 24 hours at the convention... my coworkers were laughing their ass off as they read the 'marketing specs' that this panel could 'provide'.
  • LED Life shorter (Score:3, Interesting)

    by swilly2006 ( 845163 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:56AM (#11263400)
    It says in the article that the life will be shorter than that of an LCD. I thought LED's pretty much lasted forever (~20 years).
    • by hattig ( 47930 )
      OLEDs have a lifespan of between 10000 and 50000 hours at the moment, I think it is the blue that has the lowest lifespan. Of course, the lifespans are a lot better than they were a couple of years ago!

      Hopefully the shorter lives will be offset by the display being so much cheaper. Anyway, for computer displays most people would want to update the display after 5-7 years anyway, regardless of actual lifespan! 10000 hours is 3 years at 10 hours a day, or 6 years at 5 hours a day.
    • In most laptops the LCD screen failure is caused by the backlight breaking - if you shine a really bright light at the screen you'll still be able to make out the LCD display. Obviously most users don't have the know how to replace a backlight, and so just buy a new laptop. Backlights typically fail anything from 3 - 10 years, so normally you'd be thinking of upgrading when it went anyway :)
    • I thought LED's pretty much lasted forever (~20 years).

      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 base
    • by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @02:58PM (#11266155)
      The point is that OLED's are not made of the same stuff that your normal "big" LEDs are made of. What they have in common is that they are diodes and emit light. Consider that the Panasonic screen has over 18 million of them packed in an area the size of my monitor. That's pretty impressive.

      What's not impressive is that they tend to grow fainter with time. The article says 10,000 hours before they lose half their brightness... that's not very long, and I'm sure you'd notice the effect well before the 10,000-hour point. Elsewhere I read that this dimming is not even across the color range, and that the images get progressively more red. LCD displays are supposed to lose half their brightness in 30,000 hours, which is not that much better imo. That makes me wonder about CRTs. My Sony 500PS is pushing 7 years and still looks beautiful. The only difference I notice is that it takes a bit longer to warm up than when it was new. Ah, trusty old CRT! As long as I keep my big desk, I probably won't even be thinking about a new monitor before 2008. I know that "degradation with time" probably makes the salespeople happy, but I know that when I'm looking to replace my monitor, I'll be looking for something that doesn't have an obsolescense plan.

  • Nice picture, but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alhaz ( 11039 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:57AM (#11263403) Homepage
    Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?
    • You need to upgrade your Black and White monitor.
    • Re:Nice picture, but (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lmaali ( 204965 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @11:40AM (#11263765)
      Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?

      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.
      • by jnaujok ( 804613 )
        Uhm, it has pure white (Red+Green+BLUE) on the screen, and the white looks white, so it's not like the blue is failing. As a prototype, maybe they had issues with getting the blue into the bottom corners of the screen, and that's why they chose the particular image that they did, but I don't think you can say there is "no discernable blue" in the image. It's just hidden in the white.
        • Not necessarily (Score:3, Interesting)

          They could have a very poor blue colour coordinate in order to get the desired luminance.

          Blue has been a very sticky colour to work on requiring some pretty exotic materials.
      • Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?

        Traditionally the blue OLEDs have been the ones with shorter lifetimes not with poor color purity. [...]

        However, that the Samsung demo image contains no discernable blue is very strange indeed. I have my doubts that it was left out unintentionally.

        Looks to me like they have a nasty problem with burn-in and they don't want to have it show in the demos.

        The OLED dies fade with use, and the blue fades much faster than the other two. So
    • Re:Nice picture, but (Score:2, Informative)

      by jilbert ( 520628 )
      Could be. The blue OLED was the hardest to produce, and fades quiker over time than the green or red. So as well as getting dimmer over time, OLED screens also develop a colour cast.
      • Re:Nice picture, but (Score:3, Informative)

        by lmaali ( 204965 )
        Could be. The blue OLED was the hardest to produce, and fades quiker over time than the green or red. So as well as getting dimmer over time, OLED screens also develop a colour cast.

        Not quite. The blue OLED materials typically have electronic properties (in particular, the LUMO level) that makes electrical connections difficult, but we've had blue materials for quite some time. There tends to be a large voltage drop at the cathode, this means they have to be driven harder (and hotter). Also, the photop
    • Well, you don't need shades of blue, humans can barely discern them anyway. :)
    • May be because of whatever crappy CRT/LCD you are watching the article on. I see perfectly blue roses on my OLED display.
  • Korean Technology` (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I am very impressed with the progress Korean electronic manufacturers have made in the past 5 years. Is there any doubt that they are the equal of their Japanese counterparts? Especially Samsung.
  • by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @10:58AM (#11263416) Homepage
    Can anyone make sense of this?

    OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution.

    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.
    • Well, resolution doesn't have to be related to space, it can be related to time. If this display has a response time of 25us instead of 25ms, you can use the display for high frame rate video, or to reduce flicker, or simply to have a very crisp display with no fading - good for games!
      • Well, resolution doesn't have to be related to space, it can be related to time.
        I call bullshit. In ~30 years of using computers I've never heard screen resolution mean anything other than the number of pixels.
        If this display has a response time of 25us instead of 25ms, you can use the display for high frame rate video, or to reduce flicker
        That's called refresh rate.
        • He's right, but few people in *computers* use it that way, so you're sorta right, too. Spatial resolution, temporal resolution, effective resolution (like how if your dot pitch isn't small enough, you may not actually be seeing 1600x1200 pixels when you tell your CRT to do it), differing chrominance and luminance resolutions, or the more traditional optical usage that means something like "how small an object we can discern as a separate object" etc... all confuse the issue.
        • Yes maybe in 30 years of using computers you would have heard resolution mean anything other than the number of pixels. But in the TV world there are concepts called temporal resolution and spatial resolution. Spatial resolution is indeed just the number of pixels, whereas temporal resolution is the # of pixels * framerate. I'm sure that they're talking of temporal resolution in this article, and it makes sense to. This is what we really perceive.
    • by Sawbones ( 176430 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @11:19AM (#11263578)
      While odds are it's just horrible writing there is one thing I can think of; it may be similar to the "wobulation" used on DLP displays.

      Pop Sci link on wobulation []

      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.

      • It is also the reason why a lot of people see rainbows, get headaches and notice motion artifacts watching DLP based sets.

        A better solution (and what they use for high-end products) is to use a DLP chip for each color and combine the result optically rather than the use of a color wheel.

      • Actually you simplified the issue past the point of being true. ;)

        Some people call this "temporal dithering" (as opposed to the regular kind of dithering, which I guess is spatial dithering) and the reason for it is that DLP pixels are either 100% on or 100% off at any given time, with no middle ground. If you want to display 50% gray on a DLP, your pixel has to be white half the time and black half the time.

        While DLP is fast, it's not quite fast enough to make enough colors using the temporal dithering a
        • Actually you simplified the issue past the point of being true. ;)

          Somewhat ditto for your explaination.

          If you want to display 50% gray on a DLP, your pixel has to be white half the time and black half the time.

          Actually, it is worse than this for home and low-cost DLPs. With an RGB color wheel, the red would be on 1/6th of the time, green for 1/6th and blue for 1/6th. The 1/6th is best-case as there are usually delays when the color is changing. I'm not sure of exact color order though.

          Your expla
        • I bought an LCD rear projection for basically the same reasons. I thought the DLP looked superior on HD material ("sharper" somehow), but on SD and DVD material, the DLP looked over-processed and too artifacty.

          The best way I could sum it up was that the LCD to DLP relationship was something like film to video. Good video images have a sharpness that film doesn't have, but good film images have a smoothness that video doesn't have. I choose smooth.

      • I think wobulation relies on moving some optical element within the projection system. I doubt it would be good for a 21" flat panel.
        • You can do temporal dithering on an LCD to get your 'intermediate' value pixels somewhere in the middle of the two. I've seen it done on high end IBM LCD displays.

          Also there is a limit to how small you can make an LCD and still have a sufficiently response time (also how large, too). OLEDs will not have this limitation.
      • This wobbulation looks more like a smoothing technique than anything else. You don't get any more resolution. At least not the way that link is describing. If you can shift the optical path in between you can increase the resolution. if you dont' all you get is a smoothing algorithm, which could be done on the input side for that matter.

        I haven't seen a display using one of TI's 1280x720 chips claiming they do 1920x1080 resolution. Sounds like complete BS to me.

        Also TI does have a real 1920x1080 DLP chip.
        • Currently only HD3 engined DLP sets use wobbulation. HD2 and HD2+ do not wobbulate, they are native.

          The HD3 chip is actually 640x720 and shifts the chips midstream to wobbulte to 1280x720.

          Viewiers are split. The image on the wobbulate sets is smoother and screen door is eliminated, but the overall image is softer.

          Some think the wobbulators cause more rainbows. Nothing conclusive on this, but it makes sense as this effectively cuts the colour wheels speed in half.

          Given the Above I would avoid HD3. I woul
    • My guess would be that it's not a resolution/speed issue, but a resolution/framerate thing. Having faster pixels doesn't mean you can have a higher res, but it does mean you can have a higher res at the same framerate as a lower one.
    • by powermung ( 780700 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:40PM (#11264360)
      It seems like a translation error. Nowhere in the original Korean version of the article mentions higher resolution. The corresponding section should have been translated "enables smoother video/animation display."
    • From what I remember, LCD response time and contrast decrease as pixel size decreases. As resolution increases, response decreases. There is a point where response time must not be reasonable any longer.

      Presumably, OLED has a much higher threshold, therefore higher resolution can be reached before response time becomes an issue.

  • Resolution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @11:10AM (#11263515)
    The resolution is quoted as being about 6.22 million pixels, which makes the resolution 1920x1080.

    I assume the screen is 16x9, and that the quoted pixel count is counteing each red, green and blue element as seperate.
  • I think Samsung and Korea or Asia in general should be congratulated on this, given that just 4 decades ago, their GNP/GDP was equivalent to some of the sub Saharan countries. At this pace, these Asians will surpass the [mighty] US in another three decades.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    It might be useful to remind people that organic does not imply life. Organic, in a chemical sense (I am fairly certain - though I am studying physics, not chemistry), implies molecules with carbon (and maybe hydrogen or oxygen?), nothing more. Similarly, organic molecules are hypothesized to be widely distributed through space (such as on Titan, where they may rain from the sky). While organic molecules might be necessary to have life, alone they may not be sufficient for it.
  • Well (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WaZiX ( 766733 )
    i doubt anyone will be able to buy OLED tv's before quite some time... Just seeing how much money LCD and TFT are generating, how much investements they have in those technologies, and since OLED should be much cheaper generating less profit large manufacturers will wait as much as possible before introducing these. Fortunately Nashs theory will eventually kick in and as soon as one of them comercialises one, they all will. So basically expect a lot of nothing then a boom with everything.
    • Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Thagg ( 9904 ) <> on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:26PM (#11264240) Journal
      I don't know Nash's theory, but what appears to be happening is that the different huge Asian conglomerates are each persuing different technologies. This is a relatively new thing in the TV market, and exposes a new layer of competition. Up until a few years ago, companies were mostly competing at the margins of features and price, and we had big, beautiful, feature-rich CRTs at remarkably low prices (and low margins for the manufacturers.)

      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)

        by WaZiX ( 766733 )
        Well at the moment companies basically have a unspoken deal not to bring OLED on the market too soon to be able to gain as much as possible from the current TFT technology, however there is only but one Nash's equilibrium which is where all companies offer cheaper solutions (this time its OLED). So basically what im saying is that someday some company will bring out a cheaper solution wether it be OLED (certainly appears so now) or something else and all companies will have to bring their cheaper solutions/
    • Re:Well (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bloggins02 ( 468782 )
      Don't automatically assume "cheaper" = "less profit". If I sell a car for $20000 but it cost $19995 to make, and on the other hand I sell a t-shirt for $20.00 that cost $10.00 to make, I've made twice as much money selling the t-shirt than I have selling the car.

      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 m
  • power consumption? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Guano_Jim ( 157555 )
    What's the power consumption of a unit like this? How does it compare to an LCD screen?

  • Picture (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mahler ( 171064 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:03PM (#11264008) has a picture

    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.
  • I've read that what made OLED displays troublesome for so long was creating a pure-blue LED that had long life.

    I wonder if this first generation of consumer OLED displays will last as long as a CRT.

    I hope they last longer than a Plasma display, since color fading is one of that technologies drawbacks.


  • ...on my phone (E700), the front screen is a small OLED. The thing you notice immediately is that it can be viewed perfectly from any angle (compared, for instance, to the TFT on the inside screen which has the normal LCD viewing range). Since it is light emitting (rather than requiring a backlight) the black is also pretty much as black as a CRT.
  • I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)

    by koi88 ( 640490 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @12:26PM (#11264229)

    ...using active matrix-based (AM) technology on Tuesday

    I wonder what it's using the rest of the week... Maybe it goes into passive mode (or does this only happen on Sundays?
  • ...did what I just did - race over to the jpeg of a photo of a better display than my iBook to see just how much more wonderful it was.

    Looks great! ;-)
  • I think while Samsung is commended for getting OLED's to 21" size, they're going to have a seroius competitor for truly flat displays with the Canon/Toshiba SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) that will be available on the market in the fall of 2005.

    Sure, SED's do use more power than LCD's, but SED's make up for this with CRT-level brightness without the finicky geometry calibrations needed for high-resolution CRT's. It will be well after SED displays become commonplace that we'll see a proli
  • OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution.

    How does this make sense? How does faster switching time == greater resolution? This really leads me to wonder about the veracity of these articles.

  • Of a *picture* of an OLED display, if you're only going to be viewing the picture on a *LCD or CRT*? I mean, how can can you ever appreciate it???
    • re: 861 -- that's a nice use of flash; but why can't the 861 people find somebody willing to go to court about their taxable income -- I am sure funding could be found (I am not an American so the whole business seems bizarre in the extreme to me.)
  • "OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution."

    Perhaps it's related to superman flying backwards around the world fast enough to reverse time so the pixels shrink to their infant state...
  • by Easy2RememberNick ( 179395 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2005 @02:47PM (#11265968)
    Caption under the picture of the OLED display on reads:
    "Samsung Electronics unveiled the world's largest 21-inch organic light emitting diode (OLED) display"

    How can it be the world's largest 21-inch OLED display, aren't all 21-inch displays 21 inches?

    Looks interesting though.

  • There's an OLED display in that picture??

  • According to this IEEE pdf document ... []

    Seiko Epson, using inkjet printing, unveiled a 35-inch (88-cm) prototype full-color OLED display in May-- the industry's largest OLED screen. Seiko Epson says it will be able to produce large OLED TV panels using this technology after improving its OLED materials and extending their lifetime.

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.