Samsung Shows Off 21" OLED Display 260
aztektum writes "C|Net and Technewsworld.com have posted stories about Samsung's new 21" OLED.
Chosun.com has a picture and a projection that OLEDs will be a 2.2 billion dollar a year market by 2008."
One sentence... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One sentence... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A Note From 2008 (Score:5, Funny)
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!
-Peter
Re:A Note From 2008 (Score:2, Funny)
I thought it was funny. You might have added a line about MS Longhorn being pushed back again.
A note from 1995 (Score:3, Funny)
organic (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Funny)
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/lcd.h
Vacuum-filled glass jar? Hehe, i like that.
Fill my jar with vacuum please! And don't be stingy about it!
Re:Seriously (Score:2)
The reason you need multiple resolutions with a tube is that at higher res the tube flickers, and the picture is not as stable, so multiple resolutions give you your compromise:-). Why the heck would you want to run an LCD or an OLED at lower than the highest res?
Better picture quality is only better is you're talking about color transmission. The geometry issue is non-existent on any
Re:Seriously (Score:2)
It's an LED, so the brightness of each pixel would be directly proportional to duty cycle, and should be also proportional to current, if not quite precisely. This should allow for much better color transmission than an LCD.
Re:Seriously (Score:2)
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.
Thats how they are beating certain problems with e (Score:2)
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)
Manta
Re:organic (Score:2)
Re:organic (Score:2)
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)
Gosh I just can't wait!
Re:Wooo! (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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
Re:Wooo! (Score:2)
Re:Wooo! (Score:2)
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.
Sony Demo'd a 15" panel once (Score:2)
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)
Re:LED Life shorter (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:LED Life shorter (Score:2)
Backlight that shorts normally, not the LCDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Semiconductor crystals vs. carbon chains. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your typical LEDs are large crystals with doping atoms substituted for a miniscule fraction of the regular atoms in the structure. This is an extremely stable arrangement of atoms and lasts a long time, despite the electrical forces applied to it. Even if an atom is knocked out of place it tends to fall back into place, and it takes an enormous amount of damage to make it stop working, or even become appreciably less efficient.
Organic LEDs are base
Re:LED Life shorter (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:LED Life shorter (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice picture, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice picture, but (Score:2)
Re:Nice picture, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Traditionally the blue OLEDs have been the ones with shorter lifetimes not with poor color purity. I started doing resesarch on OLEDs in 1995 before most people had ven heard about them. But *much* research has been focused on better blue materials and they've made great strides in lifetime.
However, that the Samsung demo image contains no discernable blue is very strange indeed. I have my doubts that it was left out unintentionally.
Re:Nice picture, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily (Score:3, Interesting)
Blue has been a very sticky colour to work on requiring some pretty exotic materials.
They're avoiding burn-in. (Score:2)
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)
Re:Nice picture, but (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Nice picture, but (Score:2)
Re:Nice picture, but (Score:2)
Korean Technology` (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does pixel response time have anything to do with resolution? That should strictly be a function of pixel size, shouldn't it? I have a feeling that someone didn't translate something right, or else flat out doesn't know what they're talking about.
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:5, Interesting)
Pop Sci link on wobulation [popsci.com]
Basically since DLP displays can't be made to have a physical resolution high enough for HDTV but they can change pixels awfully fast they have each DLP element alternate display of two different colors very fast which tricks the eye into thinking it sees 4 pixels worth of information. The article does a much better job explaining it.
But yeah, odds are just crappy journalism.
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
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
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
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
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:3)
Not really (Score:2)
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.
TI has real 1920 chip. Ti Chips and specs: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wobbulation update. (Score:2)
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
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
Presumably, OLED has a much higher threshold, therefore higher resolution can be reached before response time becomes an issue.
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (Score:2)
Resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume the screen is 16x9, and that the quoted pixel count is counteing each red, green and blue element as seperate.
Re:Resolution (Score:2)
Re:Resolution (Score:2)
That's an achievement. (Score:2)
Re:That's an achievement. (Score:2)
And I admit that my intransigence is slipping out today. I *so wish* we would engage in the effort of actually manufacturing more consumer go
Re:That's an achievement. (Score:2)
Re:That's an achievement. (Score:2)
Agreed 100%. Just like the Americans invented the transistor but it was useless [to them] till the Japanese showed them what to do with it. Guess what...! Most good electronics and cameras are Japanese. Where was your monitor manufactured?
Another bit for you. Yes, Henry Ford invented the line assembly in the USA, but the Japanese came from behind and now have their Toyota as one of the best built vehicles on any continent. If you ever visted Australia, you see what I mean. In
Re:That's an achievement. (Score:2)
Lets see we built computers, and radios, and TVs. At that time Japan was in the same boat as China is now. They produced cheap stuff of low quality. Often they would stick on extra transistors hooked up to nothing just so they could claim a radio had 7 transistors. Radio collectors today want the US made radios from the 50s guess what they often still work. The japane
While the Living Jokes are Funny... (Score:2, Informative)
That's not what organic means! (Score:2)
Well (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, though, we see Sharp (for example) betting the ranch of LCDs, Toshiba and Canon going for broke on SEDs, Samsung and LG with these OLEDs, and other flogging plasma panels for all they're worth. Rather than competing on marginal features, they are all desperately competing in basic science and process engineering. It's amazing to watch, and I can imagine that the pressure on the development teams is intense -- because it's likely that all but one of these technologies will be abandoned when the winner is apparent.
I'm betting on SEDs, because they provide high quality, reasonable manufacturability, long life, and build on the best of current CRT technologies. OLEDs will rule if, in the end, it is possible to get the science to work -- I'm just not convinced yet that it is.
Thad Beier
Nash (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:2, Interesting)
What might end up happening though, is this: OLEDs are cheaper to manufacture than LCDs, so a company markets one and prices it (say) 10% cheaper than an equivalent LCD. But if the manufacturing process is 50% cheaper, they're still making MUCH m
power consumption? (Score:2, Interesting)
Picture (Score:3, Interesting)
I strongly doubt that this picture is actual footage from the display picture-quality. Seems to me that they've inserted a nice image with some photo-editing software. It is just to show the outer case.
A Question: How long do they last? (Score:2)
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.
-Sean
Already have a Samsung OLED... (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder what it's using the rest of the week... Maybe it goes into passive mode (or does this only happen on Sundays?
of course we all... (Score:2)
Looks great!
But how competitive against SED? (Score:2)
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
How does this make sense? (Score:2)
How does this make sense? How does faster switching time == greater resolution? This really leads me to wonder about the veracity of these articles.
What's the point? (Score:2)
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
Things you might believe but can't prove.... (Score:2)
Perhaps it's related to superman flying backwards around the world fast enough to reverse time so the pixels shrink to their infant state...
When 21 inches is not 21 inches (Score:3, Funny)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
SEIKO showed a 35" OLED display in MAY ... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
Still, I would like this display, especially if it was cheap and suitable for computer work as well as video work.
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Interesting)
Duh.
I'm too stupid for
-Jar.
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Incorrect. - 1920 x 1080 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:technology press run amok ... again (Score:2)
Re:technology press run amok ... again (Score:4, Funny)
Samsung Electronics unveiled the world's largest 21-inch organic light emitting diode (OLED) display...
Hmm... Maybe I should call Guinness; I might just have the world's heaviest 8-ounce potato!
Re::o) heh (Score:2)
Pretty bright, eh?
HAH! (Score:2)
The problem is, of course, that no one would foot the bill for testing. So people would make a compound, coat it, test it for a couple of hours... but there were a million things that could have been done wrong to make the item fail. But they always expect OLEDs to behave like certain analog chemicals they've made.... and thus they never make any real progress.
Cell Phones and Cameras already have them (Score:3, Insightful)
Cell phones have had OLEDs for some time.
Radio (car) manufacturers have had OLED displays as well.
Apple would be 4th place at best....
Re:Cell Phones and Cameras already have them (Score:3, Interesting)