Will This Next-Generation Display Technology Change the World? (cnet.com) 58
"I saw the future at CES 2023," writes Geoffrey Morrison, describing "a new, top-secret prototype display technology" that could one day replace LCD and OLED for phones and TVs. "It was impossibly flat, like a vibrantly glowing piece of paper."
Meet electroluminescent quantum dots: Until now, quantum dots were always a supporting player in another technology's game. A futuristic booster for older tech, elevating that tech's performance. QDs weren't a character on their own. That is no longer the case. The prototype I saw was completely different. No traditional LEDs and no OLED. Instead of using light to excite quantum dots into emitting light, it uses electricity. Nothing but quantum dots. Electroluminescent, aka direct-view, quantum dots. This is huge.
Or at least, has the potential to be huge. Theoretically, this will mean thinner, more energy-efficient displays. It means displays that can be easier, as in cheaper, to manufacture. That could mean even less expensive, more efficient, bigger-screen TVs. The potential in picture quality is at least as good as QD-OLED, if not better. The tech is scalable from tiny, lightweight, high-brightness displays for next-generation VR headsets, to highly efficient phone screens, to high-performance flat-screen TVs.
The article predicts the simpler structure means "Essentially, you can print an entire QD display onto a surface without the heat required by other 'printable' tech.... Just about any flat or curved surface could be a screen." This leads to QD screens not just on TVs and phones, but on car windshields, eyeglass lenses, and even bus or subway windows. ("These will initially be pitched by cities as a way to show people important info, but inevitably they'll be used for advertising. That's certainly not a knock against the tech, just how things work in the world....")
Nanosys is calling this direct-view, electroluminescent quantum dot tech "nanoLED," and told CNET that "their as-yet-unnamed manufacturing partner is going to be talking more about the technology in a few months...
"Even Nanosys admits direct-view quantum dot displays are still several years away from mass production.... But 5-10 years from now we'll almost certainly have options for QD [quantum dot] displays in our phones, probably in our living rooms, and possibly on our windshields and windows."
Meet electroluminescent quantum dots: Until now, quantum dots were always a supporting player in another technology's game. A futuristic booster for older tech, elevating that tech's performance. QDs weren't a character on their own. That is no longer the case. The prototype I saw was completely different. No traditional LEDs and no OLED. Instead of using light to excite quantum dots into emitting light, it uses electricity. Nothing but quantum dots. Electroluminescent, aka direct-view, quantum dots. This is huge.
Or at least, has the potential to be huge. Theoretically, this will mean thinner, more energy-efficient displays. It means displays that can be easier, as in cheaper, to manufacture. That could mean even less expensive, more efficient, bigger-screen TVs. The potential in picture quality is at least as good as QD-OLED, if not better. The tech is scalable from tiny, lightweight, high-brightness displays for next-generation VR headsets, to highly efficient phone screens, to high-performance flat-screen TVs.
The article predicts the simpler structure means "Essentially, you can print an entire QD display onto a surface without the heat required by other 'printable' tech.... Just about any flat or curved surface could be a screen." This leads to QD screens not just on TVs and phones, but on car windshields, eyeglass lenses, and even bus or subway windows. ("These will initially be pitched by cities as a way to show people important info, but inevitably they'll be used for advertising. That's certainly not a knock against the tech, just how things work in the world....")
Nanosys is calling this direct-view, electroluminescent quantum dot tech "nanoLED," and told CNET that "their as-yet-unnamed manufacturing partner is going to be talking more about the technology in a few months...
"Even Nanosys admits direct-view quantum dot displays are still several years away from mass production.... But 5-10 years from now we'll almost certainly have options for QD [quantum dot] displays in our phones, probably in our living rooms, and possibly on our windshields and windows."
Only ChatGPT will bring World Peace (Score:4, Funny)
Any other technology is just a distraction.
Especially technologies so secret they have to be blurred. =/
Re: Only ChatGPT will bring World Peace (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ChatGPT kinda pissed me off when it refused to answer me who would win a one-on-one game of basketball between Labron James and Michael Jordan when they were both in their prime.
It also scolded me about requesting "violent content" when I asked it who would win a fight between Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris, both also in their prime.
This thing might end up causing more technology rage than it solves!
Re: Only ChatGPT will bring World Peace (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Vaporwarr (Score:4, Funny)
Iâ(TM)ve been hearing about breakthrough display tech for decades but it never comes to fruition. Back in the 80s it was color LCDs that was hyped and never materialized. In the 90s it was organic based LEDs.
Re: Vaporwarr (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's sarcasm.
Re: Vaporwarr (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. Those things happened.
Woosh. ;)
Re: Vaporwarr (Score:2)
There's no display tech that will make a groundbreaking change for users anymore.
What we have is good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you can't think of the groundbreaking changes that may occur.
Others will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Others might.
And even if they do, will anyone else even care? This is not clear to me at all.
It's hard to say what the future will bring, but I do know that whatever the "groundbreaking changes" end up being, it will be something you could emulate with a stereoscopic display of adequate resolution and refresh rate.
the truly "groundbreaking changes" will be through direct neural inference if they happen at all.
Re: Vaporwarr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're thinking small.
Current display tech is neither fully transparent, nor does it scale down (or up if you talk about pixels per inch). There are very much markets for both types of technology that are not met by any current devices.
Just jump into any article about VR where you can find people bitching about the low resolution of these technically 4K displays smaller than a typical mobile phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting sick and tired of all the VR hype. I've got a friend who's into it, says I've got to try it, it's amazing, etc. I point out that my 4 4k screens have more than 35 million pixels, compared to his crappy 3 million, and that even his "virtual world" requires physical controls to achieve anything near reality. He's into racing games - got the steering wheel and pedals. Why? Because the "virtual world controls" suck. You NEED physical analogues of what you're doing for a more immersive experience. S
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting sick and tired of all the VR hype.
You don't need to enjoy VR. Let other people do their thing. The world isn't about you. I'm into it. I like it. And I look forward to better displays.
I point out that my 4 4k screens have more than 35 million pixels, compared to his crappy 3 million
Thankyou, you made my point for me beautifully. I mean your comparison is irrelevant, but your point that VR headsets are crappy speaks to my point that current display technology is not good enough.
He's into racing games - got the steering wheel and pedals. Why? Because the "virtual world controls" suck.
Err no. I'd wager he had a steering wheel before and it has nothing to do with VR. Appropriate input systems for appropriate hobbies. I'm into shooting games and t
Re: (Score:2)
Thankyou, you made my point for me beautifully. I mean your comparison is irrelevant, but your point that VR headsets are crappy speaks to my point that current display technology is not good enough.
And you keep assuming that VR needs headsets. This has NEVER been the case. Take a look at any aircraft simulator from 30 years ago. No headsets, just a cockpit laden with instruments and controls and external displays that gave an immersive experience way beyond anything stupid headsets can provide today. VR has never been only about what you see. It's also about what you touch - the control yoke, the throttle(s), prop pitch, fuel mix, the radio stack, the light switches, the rudders, controls to raise and
On the plus side (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a story about another battery technology that may or may not ever see the light of day.
Durability? (Score:3)
The tech is scalable from tiny, lightweight, high-brightness displays for next-generation VR headsets, to highly efficient phone screens, to high-performance flat-screen TVs.
That's nice, but how will they hold up to use? I know it sounds odd to be asking about durability for a tv screen, but as anyone who has kids knows, things happen.
Also, we use the P24 monitors from HP which are definitely thinner than the pervious Lenovo monitors, but their durability sucks. Apply a modicum of force and the screen breaks. Will these wonder screens do the same?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Durability? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have kids, you should just live in the barn and be done with it.
Here, let me fix that for you:
If you have kids, they should just live in the barn and be done with it. They would probably have more fun, more privacy, and more friends coming over to hang out and be with the animals - even if the animals is just some dogs, cats, rabbits, and a few egg-laying hens.
Re: Durability? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
After a period of mourning, I replaced it with a 27" CRT TV I found at the side of the road. Now the kids can hit it all they want. Those things are indestructible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And they won't recover their high frequency hearing ever. Just because we lost it, we shouldn't expose them to this. Not everything about CRT was great.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no high-frequency hearing because you're old. Get over it.
Colour Kindles with full spectrum colours? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Colour Kindles with full spectrum colours? (Score:3)
This won't quite replace e-ink since it's still emissive, the whole thing about e ink is it's reflective which is why it has that paper feel. In practice it probably will though as it will open up new device designs.
Re: Colour Kindles with full spectrum colours? (Score:2)
Sorry I now saw you said all that already. Disregard this comment.
bet it has 3d holographic functionality (Score:2)
bet it has 3d holographic functionality
Glasses lenses would be enough (Score:2)
If we can get them into our glasses lenses and wait for AR tech to catch up, would we really need them anywhere else?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah right... (Score:1)
To paraphrase the great Dr Gregory House:
It's never 5-10 years.
One in a million prototypes turn in to usable products. Think about it.
Who Cares, Really (Score:2)
If it shows up and is worth using, people will use it. How they use it we don't know, so that's enough of that.
The future is so bright (Score:2)
You will need sunglasses at any time of day to not get your retinas fried by the screens everywhere, flashing and annoying you advertising, propaganda and people that looks like freaking Teletubbies using their large bellies to show stupid videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They stole Bigfoot's scramble suit technology!
On my eyeglass lens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A display on my eyeglasses? How am I supposed to focus on something 1/4 inch away from my eye?
I take it you wear eyglasses just to look cool? I mean otherwise I'm sure you would have heard of the concept of a lens...
Nope (Score:3)
No "display technology" will "change the world". Maybe we should permanently ban some "headline makers": from making demented headlines though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"as advertised" ...and I'll bet that's exactly how this world-changing tech will be monetized: Advertising, "everywhere on everything".
I'd say CRT screens changed the world. Sure as hell beat using punch cards. Major productivity improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
No "display technology" will "change the world".
Nothing like displaying a profound lack of vision and combining it with displaying an indescribable lack of seeing the world around you. It's like you're living in an alternate reality.
I get it. Monday. I too am depressed at the start of the week, but everything you wrote today on Slashdot has been just utter rubbish, even by your low standards.
Re: (Score:2)
How low are we aiming now? (Score:2)
"That could mean even less expensive, more efficient, bigger-screen TVs. " counts as changing the world now, does it? Fuck's sake.
Re: (Score:1)
If cheaper manufacturing ever leads to lower retail prices, then yes, that would be a major shift which would change the world.
It doesn't happen that way tho.
Re: (Score:2)
If cheaper manufacturing ever leads to lower retail prices, then yes, that would be a major shift which would change the world.
It doesn't happen that way tho.
Really? At the turn of the decade I bought a 50" plasma TV. Full HD (1920x1080). Amazing picture. Weights a ton (I moved it back into my bedroom, which is why I know it weighs almost 90 pounds). Consumes 480 watts. No "smart TV" functionality whatsoever.
The 4 50" smart TVs I'm typing this on cost less than half the price each, consume on average 66 watts each (max 125 watts), weight 26 pounds each, have built-in web browsers and other apps so they can work with or without a computer, and their resolution
Quantum? (Score:2)
Probably a promising technology, but its name is misleading IMHO. This thing is about as quantum as the fluorescence effect. Someone not familiar with the technology would think that it's an enormous breakthrough akin to Quantum Computing (tm), while in reality it's waaay more mundane.
Terminology (Score:2)
The answer (Score:2)